US Intelligence Concludes: China Didn't Weaponize COVID-19, Didn't Have Foreknowledge (dni.gov) 162
The head of America's Intelligence Community reports that the U.S. intelligence community "was able to reach broad agreement" on several key issues about the origins of COVID-19.
"We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon," they announced today.
In addition, the U.S. intelligence community report includes a second new assessment: that China's officials "did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged."
Beyond that, they note that most of the intelligence community's agencies also specifically assess that SARS-CoV-2 "probably was not genetically engineered" (albeit with "low confidence"). Of the 19 member agencies in the U.S. intelligence community, just two believed that there just wasn't enough evidence to actually issue an assessment of either possibility, the report adds.
The [U.S.] intelligence community judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged. The intelligence community — and the global scientific community — lacks clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest COVID-19 cases. If we obtain information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure, it may alter our evaluation of hypotheses.
China's cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information, and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China's government's own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China.
In assessing whether a lab incident or a "natural" exposure to an infected animal caused the outbreak, they cited assessments from eight different U.S. intelligence community elements. Half of them agreed with the National Intelligence Council assessment (with low confidence) "that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus — a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China's officials' lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors."
Three of the remaining four "remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely." One element did assess "with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology... Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps."
The 18-page assessment includes an appendix addressing details of specific theories, but ultimately concludes that "Our growing understanding of the similarities of SARS-CoV-2 to other coronaviruses in nature and the ability of betacoronaviruses — the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs — to naturally recombine suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered." It even notes that the much-discussed furin cleavage sites "have been identified in naturally occurring coronaviruses in the same genetic location [as in SARS-CoV-2]. This suggests that SARS-CoV-2 or a progenitor virus could have acquired its furin cleavage sites through natural recombination with another virus."
"We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon," they announced today.
In addition, the U.S. intelligence community report includes a second new assessment: that China's officials "did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged."
Beyond that, they note that most of the intelligence community's agencies also specifically assess that SARS-CoV-2 "probably was not genetically engineered" (albeit with "low confidence"). Of the 19 member agencies in the U.S. intelligence community, just two believed that there just wasn't enough evidence to actually issue an assessment of either possibility, the report adds.
The [U.S.] intelligence community judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged. The intelligence community — and the global scientific community — lacks clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest COVID-19 cases. If we obtain information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure, it may alter our evaluation of hypotheses.
China's cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information, and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China's government's own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China.
In assessing whether a lab incident or a "natural" exposure to an infected animal caused the outbreak, they cited assessments from eight different U.S. intelligence community elements. Half of them agreed with the National Intelligence Council assessment (with low confidence) "that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus — a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China's officials' lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors."
Three of the remaining four "remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely." One element did assess "with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology... Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps."
The 18-page assessment includes an appendix addressing details of specific theories, but ultimately concludes that "Our growing understanding of the similarities of SARS-CoV-2 to other coronaviruses in nature and the ability of betacoronaviruses — the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs — to naturally recombine suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered." It even notes that the much-discussed furin cleavage sites "have been identified in naturally occurring coronaviruses in the same genetic location [as in SARS-CoV-2]. This suggests that SARS-CoV-2 or a progenitor virus could have acquired its furin cleavage sites through natural recombination with another virus."
Yeah, but (Score:2, Funny)
I knew a guy who knew a guy who posted on Facebook that it's all a conspiracy and China is trying to kill us all. I've seen some secret information that proves it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What I found strange is the evidence was way
Re: (Score:3)
The Italy evidence actually goes back to October, even September 2019.
Does not change however the idea that it originated in China/Wuhan.
Point is simply: neither people in Italy (they where treated for many strange things, e.g. simple skin irritations) nor in China, were actually aware what was going on.
Pointing fingers at one who is trying to do his best, and exclaiming "we expect better from you", is extremely low level human behaviour. If you know better: teach him. If you don't: shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but (Score:4, Interesting)
If covid was spreading widely in Italy in September 2019, then why does *every sars-cov-2 virus ever sequenced* fit perfectly into a single tree, rooted in the Wuhan ancestral strain, with the genetic diversity going to zero (i.e. the spillover event occurring) sometime in November 2019?
Going back in time to September evidence exists of infection but is very dubious. None of the samples have been reliably sequenced and the papers about them don't seem to have survived peer review so they may be false positives. I don't think you can rely on any data points before November or maybe even December.
Having said that, however, the SARS-COV-2 of even January 2020 was much less fit than the one we have now. I saw someone estimate that there was only a 15% chance that it would even continue on to be a pandemic. It may be that only one infection chain in Wuhan survived out of several that existed so the November zero genetic diversity event might not be the spillover, just the point that it almost died out before it started seriously spreading.
Re: (Score:2)
Going back in time to September evidence exists of infection but is very dubious.
It is absolutely not dubios.
When it became clear that COVID infections can cause skin irritations, the Italian health system analyzed all old blood samples of people who came with "undeclare able skin irritations" to doctors.
The oldest results that show COVID infections are from September/October.
I don't think you can rely on any data points before November or maybe even December.
That is nonsense. The Italians have the habit t
Re: (Score:2)
If covid was spreading widely in Italy in September 2019
It was not spreading widely. The findings about COVID around that time are mostly from conserved sewage water, which was analyzed for COVID half or even a full year later.
then why does *every sars-cov-2 virus ever sequenced* fit perfectly into a single tree, rooted in the Wuhan
Because Wuhan is a famous tourist attraction for Spanish an Italian tourists.
We have 2021 now. You should know the last part. Or how do you think the virus came to Europe? By i
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know why people became so obsessed with the China conspiracy.
Could it have something to do with the so-called "leader of the free world" repeatedly referring to it as the "China virus"?
Re: (Score:2)
Could it have something to do with how secretive the Chinese have been?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I detect clear mockery in that posting and a command of language that indicates a level of sophistication way above what an average covid denier can manage. Of course, it may be a covid denier reposting a mocking statement without understanding it....
Layers within layers. Human stupidity is a fascinatingly complex thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Funny, but with overtones of suicidal stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was very well done. Good satire has to hurt and yes, it often birders on what a really, really stupid person could thing was a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the entire Covid-19 topic is so deep into madness that it all fits into that rule whose name I still can't recall. The rule has to do with parody that can't be distinguished from reality that can't be distinguished from some weird blend of fantasy and insanity.
Ah, I got it by searching with that sentence. It's Poe's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Haha! I can do one better! I know a guy that knows a guy that has seen a guy reading what a guy did write.... aehm....
Were was I going with that again? Never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I love that people who have never in their life strung together the words gain of function now parrot the phrase as some kind of gotcha! moment.
Ambigious and contradictory (Score:2)
Why even bother writing a report like that?
Re:Ambigious and contradictory (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's not a political report. It's a evaluation of the known facts, including estimates of uncertainty. It's written for adults.
One of the key lines is this:
Once someone with a pulpit decided to make the whole thing a political club any chance of a cooperative investigation was lost. Any country would have responded similarly. These stupid political games not only have stupid prizes, they have dangerous ones too.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you really think that if a country was responsible for a pandemic that killed millions of people, it would make them more (or less) likely to cooperate with any investigation?
Re: (Score:2)
Less. And by giving that country a independent reason not to cooperate you destroy any real or imagined value of that particular circumstantial reasoning.
Re:Ambigious and contradictory (Score:5, Insightful)
Once someone with a pulpit decided to make the whole thing a political club any chance of a cooperative investigation was lost. Any country would have responded similarly. These stupid political games not only have stupid prizes, they have dangerous ones too.
China was *already* hiding the outbreak before the rest of world even knew SARS-CoV-2 existed, so the idea that somehow they were planning on being perfect little transparent angels and then big bad Westerners forced them to start shredding documents through their mean implications is ridiculous.
As is the idea that "any country" would have "responded similarly." China's on quite a short list for countries that would arrest their own doctors reporting a new pathogen. You have to be a real totalitarian craphole for that to be true. For that that matter even China itself was far more open and allowed WHO investigation of the previous SARS-CoV-1 outbreak.
These stupid political games not only have stupid prizes, they have dangerous ones too.
What's dangerous is apologizing for a regime that has, at very minimum, been such a bad actor as to cost the world the chance of squashing a devastating global outbreak in its infancy - if its recklessness didn't start it in the first place - and drawing moral equivalency to their behavior with other nations. Especially when more broadly that same country is guilty of, e.g., actively rounding up its citizens into concentration camps and carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing. China is not "just another country doing what normal countries do." You can ask pretty much any of its neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at what was going in China at the time,you might understand their reasons for doing so. Remember, this was a novel coronavirus, never seen in humans prior to this, and if this new virus had been something that actually did not spread very easily (at the time, they were not even initially sure that human-to-human transmission was possible), then warning the world early about it would have created unneces
Re: (Score:2)
"We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon," they announced today.
That doesn't rule out Gain of Function research, which is the most likely source of the virus. The Chinese were probably not actively developing a weapon, but it's very likely that they were developing the technology which could be used to create a weaponized virus.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what the OP as talking about. It also doesn't "rule out" that the observations of phosphene on Venus were real and the aliens that produced them travelled to Earth and accidentally infected us with their version of gonorrhoea, which happens to become airborne in our atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not a political report. It's a evaluation of the known facts, including estimates of uncertainty. It's written for adults.
Sadly, "adults" in this sense are a minority in the human race. We have far too many children in adult bodies, that have just enough education to be dangerous.
So fact: The US intelligence community thinks it is highly unlikely there was any attempt to make COVID a bioweapon and, in particular, Chinese leadership had no knowledge of any such activities. (Incidentally, COVID is unusable as a bioweapon. Not lethal enough and there are other problems with it.)
Fantasy the morons immediately come up with: "It is
I don't see how you can read this any other way (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite. Those that want to start a Cold War, by definition do not want to start a hot one.
Deployment of one of the aspects of NBC triad on global scale is a declaration of a hot war.
Re: (Score:2)
They're clearly stating at the evidence shows that it's unlikely to be a bioweapon.
If your ideology wasn't blinding you to broader perspective, you would realize that stating that COVID19 was not intentionally designed to be a bio-weapon is not the same thing as stating that it was not accidentally released from the lab that was experimenting on it.
Ok ... (Score:4, Insightful)
US Intelligence Concludes: China Didn't Weaponize COVID-19, Didn't Have Foreknowledge
This will bring out the tinfoil hat brigade in full strength.
True (Score:2)
Fact is that the covid virus is no different than other coronaviruses. No two viruses are exactly the same. Bitching about the furin cleavage site, which also btw exists in some other coronaviruses is like saying a lion is genetically engineered because it has a mane. It is called evolution you fools, obviously each species has some features to distinguish it from other species or they would be the called same species. If the covid virus was engineered it was lame and amateur. An engineered virus would have
Re: (Score:2)
Bitching about the furin cleavage site, which also btw exists in some other coronaviruses
Does it?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the principle piece of evidence for SARS-CoV-2 having been a satan-baby born via a recombination event in some animal somewhere rather than the product of several quadrillion generations of evolutionary gain-of-function testing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the principle piece of evidence for SARS-CoV-2 having been a satan-baby born via a recombination event in some animal somewhere rather than the product of several quadrillion generations of evolutionary gain-of-function testing.
I have tried to look into this, but my gene editing skills/knowledge are far too weak for me to come to any reasonable estimation of how likely this is to happen naturally. I would need to put a lot of effort in to gain that skill.
Re: (Score:2)
But the evidence of it having happened is there:
SARS-CoV-2 had large distinct proteins from its closest known relatives. But those proteins are not themselves novel, only the combination of them is. They're highly unlikely to have evolved through natural mutation.
Viruses undergo what is called recombination. 2 coronaviruses enter a cell. A novel one comes out.
Like most hybrids, these are more likely to produce non-viable virions than viable ones, but when you
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty good argument. Of course the deniers and that delusional will not be able to even begin to understand the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. One of the convincing arguments (not the only one by far) that this thing was not engineered. But the morons desperately want their fantasies about how the world works to be true. They alro desperately want to think they are not morons (which prevents them from fixing that problem). So they ignore any and all facts that disagree with their fantasies and proclaim to have truth when they have nothing.
If they did use it as a weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
They would have had a better vaccine than sinovac and not released it into their own soil.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Or maybe they thought it would kill mostly old people and they've got too many of those anyway.
Clearly a segment of the Chinese leadership is happy to kill people off, especially if they're inconvenient. Just ask any out-group in China.
I'm shocked ! (Score:2)
Clearly a segment of the Chinese leadership is happy to kill people off, especially if they're inconvenient. Just ask any out-group in China.
The out-group are complaining about the in-group. You don't say...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Or maybe they thought it would kill mostly old people and they've got too many of those anyway.
Highly unlikely. They would actually have tested this and seen that it comes with high hospitalizations across all age groups and that it does not reliably kill the old. The numbers are just to bad for this being deliberate, no matter what the aim was. COVID is all over the place in its effects and long-COVID is a thing for people of every age, including children.
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to kill their own citizens, they would not have locked down as much as they did
No s*** Sherlock (Score:4, Informative)
Furthermore when you edit the gene sequences viruses first it leaves telltale marks. Trying to make a edited virus is a lot like trying to forge the Mona Lisa with a Star NX-1000 Rainbow dot matrix printer. Doesn't take much for you to tell what's been done.
Finally as if all that wasn't stupid enough genetically engineered viruses often lose the traits you went to so much trouble engineering in. Even if those traits would ordinarily increase the likelihood of virus spreading.
The conspiracy theories around the virus being man-made and or a bio weapon have always been about one thing: deflection. The previous administration wants to blame China in a way that makes it easier to shift blame and for that you need individuals to blame and not systems. China for their part doesn't want to have to change the systems that led to the virus coming into being. Specifically they don't want to have to stop there policy of deforestation or to tightly regulate their wet markets. Both of those things are essential to China's rural economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Viruses are absolutely terrible bio-weapons. They mutate so rapidly that they're just as likely to come around and bite you in the ass and that is well understood. That's why they haven't been used as a bio-weapon since days of America giving smallpox laden blankets to Indians.
FWIW the Japanese used them in WW2.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I wasn't contradicting you just being nitpicky.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
World war two. Imperial Japan deployed bioweapons, including viruses on a large scale.
Also your narrative about small pox blankets as a bio weapon back then required people to actually understand virology before even epidemiology was invented, and there's exactly one single account of this happening. And it wasn't in the case that the historian who made this falsehood a popular meme reported it in.
It's also worth remembering for that false narrative that before epidemiology was invented and solidified as a
Re: No s*** Sherlock (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot nerds disagree (Score:3)
News? (Score:2)
There are people who already know this and people who refuse to believe this. More data is not needed. We already know. We need to get the people to stop being racist dillholes.
My favorite parts of the report (Score:2)
A good article on this topic (Score:3)
Ran across a good article the other day on how implausible any sort of lab leak theory is - including the idea that it was a naturally-occurring virus being studied in a lab which may have escaped from there:
https://undark.org/2021/10/28/... [undark.org]
Virologists (Score:2)
Here are a group of actual virologists discussing previous papers on the virus' origin. None of them supports a lab origin or anything other than transmission from animals, just like the SARS 2003 and MERS epidemics.
This Week in Virology 798 [microbe.tv] (first hour only) discusses the Biden preliminary report on virus origins, the WHO committee members urging to complete the investigation, and a paper on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in the journal "Cell".
This Week in Virology 809 [microbe.tv] (first 40 minutes) discusses the Laotian b
Re: (Score:2)
What, actual facts stated by experts? These _must_ be lies! Better ignore them completely!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, isn't it sad to see what society has come to? ...
It is all about picking whichever 'side' they are on, or whatever appeals to one's prejudice, even if it is completely against science and facts
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, isn't it sad to see what society has come to? ...
It is all about picking whichever 'side' they are on, or whatever appeals to one's prejudice, even if it is completely against science and facts
Indeed. Fanatics all around.
Re:Fauci + China = Bioweapon (Score:5, Informative)
If you actually believe something like this happened, please contact a nearby mental institution because you are clearly too stupid and/or gullible to be out in the world on your own.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Plus Fauci worked for the Reagan, the literal saint of the republican party.
Re: Fauci + China = Bioweapon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you did the troll's work by propagating his vile Subject.
Re:Fauci + China = Bioweapon (Score:5, Funny)
Man, Fauci is now moving in with Obama and Hillary to live rent free in your guys heads.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, genius, why didn't Trump fire Fauci unless he himself was more in on it?
Re: (Score:1)
why didn't Trump fire Fauci
I'm pretty sure Trump was wanting to do so, as soon as his second term was secured. He was openly disagreeing with Dr. Fauci and even re-tweeting "Fire Fauci" messages.
It's a common courtesy for a standing President facing re-election to wait on potentially controversial changes until after re-election so that the voters have had a chance to decide whether or not they really agree with the ideas.
So a better question might be: if you wanted Trump to fire Fauci, why didn't you vote for Trump?
Re: (Score:1)
It's a common courtesy for a standing President facing re-election to wait on potentially controversial changes until after re-election so that the voters have had a chance to decide whether or not they really agree with the ideas.
LOL! "Trump" and "common courtesy"!
Re: (Score:3)
More likely, Fauci had a higher job approval in national polls than Trump did [cnbc.com], and he didn't want to add anymore weight to the loss that was coming his way.
It's a common courtesy for a standing President facing re-election to wait on potentially controversial changes until after re-election so that the voters have had a chance to decide whether or not they really agree with the ideas.
What, like... nominating a Supreme Court Justice?
You're high or dumber than sack of dirt.
Re: (Score:2)
This committee does not have sufficient information, and China refuses to cooperate with information gathering.
Therefore, we must conclude that China is guilty, because why else wouldn't they cooperate so as to clear their name?
I remain agnostic about the bio-engineering, although that depends in part on how you define "bio-engineering." I do not believe it was an attempted bioweapon; if it was bio-engineering, it most likely fell under the category of gain of function.
Re:Tracing... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Another question is what path did it follow to get from bats to humans?
Re:Tracing... (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't come from a cave because bat cornoviruses can't infect humans, since they're adapted to live in bats. The virus would have to have an intermediate host like a civet, or pangolin that had human-like receptors...or a lab that was experimenting on coronaviruses.
Re: (Score:3)
Though an intermediate host does make transmission far more likely.
What I want to know, is why the fuck make such a confident claim involving a subject that you're obviously not educated in?
Re: Tracing... (Score:1)
Uh oh. The local wumao simpleton has chimed in.
It must be hard for him to type while fiddling with his tiny pee pee and ogling his Xinnie the Pooh poster.
Let's see how long it takes before the tirades of hysterical abuse starts.
Re: (Score:2)
Your racism is so fucking pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm calling you racist because I'm racist?
You don't even make any sense. Troll harder, troglodyte.
Re: (Score:2)
What I want to know, is why the fuck make such a confident claim involving a subject that you're obviously not educated in?
Dunning-Kruger Effect. The most stupid and incapable people often think they have truth when they have nothing of the sort.
Re:Tracing... (Score:4, Informative)
Hell, the very article I linked to cites *three* viruses from that one cave that were isolated which are as capable of infecting human cells as the original Wuhan strain of covid.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes bat cornoviruses special?
I can think of at least one virus (Lyssaviruses ) that jumps from bat to human directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. A direct infection is just unlikely, but not impossible at all. An intermediate host increases the probability.
Seriously, stop pushing bullshit and get some actual information.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you come at this conversation with?
Do you bring up Pons and Fleischmann in fusion discussions?
I'm sorry, but a basic barrier to entry is a legitimate requirement to the debunking of any bullshit spaghetti you may want to throw at the wall, and I draw the line at debunked shitheads shunned by nearly the entirety of both the scientific and journalist communities.
Nicholas Wade
I'm a science writer and have worked on the staff of Nature, Science and, for many years, on the New York Times. nicholaswade@yahoo.com
I note he doesn't say why he no longer does.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean Trump's awesome plan? https://www.aljazeera.com/news... [aljazeera.com]
Gain of Function well known in Virology labs (Score:3)
Gain of function is a right wing talking point.
And its a well know practice in virology labs.
"Gain-of-function research (GoF research or GoFR) is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products. This may include an altered pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range, i.e. the types of hosts that a microorganism can infect. This research is intended to reveal targets to better predict emerging infectious diseases and to develop vaccines and therapeutics. For example, influenza
Re: (Score:2)
For example, influenza B can only infect humans and harbor seals.[1] ...
And cats, and dogs, and swines, and rats and mice
Introducing a mutation that would allow influenza B to infect rabbits
Not really necessary, as it is pretty obvious it can infect Rabbits to.
However: Rabbits in the wild have the rabbit habbit to stay away from humans, cats and dogs.
Re: (Score:1)
SARS-CoV-2 almost certainly did not come from gain-of-function. That's flat out laughable.
One or more recombination events led to that virus, just like the epidemics spawned by other coronaviruses.
Sorry, but person you replied to is right. It's a right-wing talking point.
Conflating "weaponization" and "gain of function" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You misrepresent the argument.
Misunderstand, possibly. Misrepresent? Definitely not.
The point here is that "weaponization (bioengineered)" and "gain of function" are two very different things.
And my point is that it is highly unlikely that gain-of-function produced SARS-CoV-19. It's bizarre to think that it did, and that ultimately it's still irrelevant to the talking point that is gain-of-function research at Wuhan.
All of China working in that lab combining viruses all day long for all of human history couldn't match what nature's doing every minute, and being nature has already pulled off the hat trick twice this century, it's fucking biza
Lab release reported a viable hypothesis, agains (Score:2)
The point here is that "weaponization (bioengineered)" and "gain of function" are two very different things.
And my point is that it is highly unlikely that gain-of-function produced SARS-CoV-19.
A straw man, I did not reference GoF as the source. I merely said that conflation of GoF with a bioengineered virus is a political gimmick, that the two are different things.
However, since you're fond of analogies,
I am also fond of expert analysis, try today's news:
"A declassified US intelligence report on the coronavirus' origin found that both the natural transmission and lab leak theories remain "plausible." The report, released by the Director of National Intelligence on Friday, details the findings from an investigation that President Joe
Re: (Score:2)
A straw man, I did not reference GoF as the source. I merely said that conflation of GoF with a bioengineered virus is a political gimmick, that the two are different things.
Now you're just being obtuse.
I'll repeat myself:
Misunderstand, possibly. Misrepresent? Definitely not.
I am also fond of expert analysis, try today's news: "A declassified US intelligence report on the coronavirus' origin found that both the natural transmission and lab leak theories remain "plausible." The report, released by the Director of National Intelligence on Friday, details the findings from an investigation that President Joe Biden ordered in May. "All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident," the report said. Although the report did not favor one theory over the other, it did come to several other important conclusions. First, most of the authors said the coronavirus wasn't genetically engineered, nor developed as a bioweapon. Second, the analysts think Chinese officials were unaware of the virus' spread before the first cluster of COVID-19 cases were reported in Wuhan in December 2019."
These seems like a sound stance for the intelligence agencies. However, that is what the evolving scientific consensus looks like.
While both are plausible, one is fucking infinitely more likely.
The far right tries to conflate GoF with bioengineered, the far left tries to conflate bioengineered with GoF.
Oh, horse shit.
Nobody is conflating bioengineering with gain-of-function.
You're conflating an argument against origin with an argument for type of lab-origin.
You're trying to weasel between the lines and say that a natural virus could have come from the lab. Sure,
Re: (Score:2)
A straw man, I did not reference GoF as the source. I merely said that conflation of GoF with a bioengineered virus is a political gimmick, that the two are different things.
Now you're just being obtuse. I'll repeat myself:
Misunderstand, possibly. Misrepresent? Definitely not.
I tried to be diplomatic on this comment, oh well. Here's reality. Misunderstanding merely means that your misrepresentation was not intentional, nothing more. The words remain a misrepresentation irregardless of your intentions.
I am also fond of expert analysis, try today's news: "A declassified US intelligence report on the coronavirus' origin found that both the natural transmission and lab leak theories remain "plausible." The report, released by the Director of National Intelligence on Friday, details the findings from an investigation that President Joe Biden ordered in May. "All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident," the report said. Although the report did not favor one theory over the other, it did come to several other important conclusions. First, most of the authors said the coronavirus wasn't genetically engineered, nor developed as a bioweapon. Second, the analysts think Chinese officials were unaware of the virus' spread before the first cluster of COVID-19 cases were reported in Wuhan in December 2019."
These seems like a sound stance for the intelligence agencies. However, that is what the evolving scientific consensus looks like. While both are plausible, one is fucking infinitely more likely.
Actually the reports specifically debunks that. Note "Although the report did not favor one theory over the other".
The far right tries to conflate GoF with bioengineered, the far left tries to conflate bioengineered with GoF.
Oh, horse shit. Nobody is conflating bioengineering with gain-of-function.
Absolutely false, GoF questions have been blown of with comments describing bioengineering/weaponization on numerous occasions.
You're conflating an argument against origin with an argument for type of lab-origin.
No, I am pointing out political games whe
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to be diplomatic on this comment, oh well. Here's reality. Misunderstanding merely means that your misrepresentation was not intentional, nothing more. The words remain a misrepresentation irregardless of your intentions.
Incorrect.
misrepresentation (n):
the action or offense of giving a false or misleading account of the nature of something. Further, irregardless is not a word.
Anyway, given your mistaken understanding of the definition of misrepresenting, I'll drop that.
Actually the reports specifically debunks that. Note "Although the report did not favor one theory over the other".
I didn't say that the report did. I said that it is a sound position for intelligence agencies to take, however, the science is not equally split.
I do note that I mistyped that the science did say it was equally split. It does not.
To an intelligence agen
Evidence to support either conclusion was thin (Score:2)
misrepresentation (n):
the action or offense of giving a false or misleading account of the nature of something.
Thank you for proving my point, intention has nothing to do with it, only the act. There is no "I misunderstood" exception for the act.
Further, irregardless is not a word.
You might want to re-open your dictionary.
irregardless adverb
Definition of irregardless
nonstandard
: REGARDLESS
Frequently Asked Questions About irregardless
Is irregardless a word?
Yes. It may not be a word that you like, or a word that you would use in a term paper, but irregardless certainly is a word. It has been in use for well over 200 years, employed by a large num
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for proving my point, intention has nothing to do with it, only the act. There is no "I misunderstood" exception for the act.
That doesn't prove your fucking point. Are you being intentionally stupid, now?
Misrepresentation is not unintentionally misunderstanding.
You might want to re-open your dictionary.
Heh. You're right, by all technical meanings, it is a "word". I shouldn't have said it wasn't. Any grouping of letters that has an ascribed meaning to someone is a word. ;) of prefixes and suffixes.
What I should have said, was that it is a word used by the illiterate.
It arose as an illiterate misrepresentation (see how that word doesn't fucking work there?
Ir, meaning n
Re: (Score:2)
Misrepresentation is not unintentionally misunderstanding.
You misrepresent my point on your misrepresentation. My point is that your misunderstanding does not change the fact that you offered a misrepresentation.
What I should have said, was that it is a word used by the illiterate. It arose as an illiterate ...
LOL. More misrepresentations, why am I not surprised. The quote you offer proves you wrong. "Usage generally characteristic" is hardly illiterate. You also missed the commentary where the "ir" is explained as an intensifier and proper examples of "ir" intensification are offered.
... misrepresentation (see how that word doesn't fucking work there?) ...
Yes, I see how an honest misunderstanding had no bearing on the act being a m
Re: Iraq Saddam has WMD too (Score:2)
Re:Iraq Saddam has WMD too (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't this the same group that conned the public into believing Saddam had WMDs that could be used against the USA. Even when lead inspector repeatedly argued they didn't. Even when there was no outside evidence any existed.
China is a lot more powerful and capable to force the story they want than Iraq was.
The intelligence services at the time did believe that they had some level of WMDs, sure, but the reports they provided clearly talked about their lack of verification. The Bush and Blair governments had those reports edited to remove the intelligence services uncertainty.
Re: (Score:2)
It cannot be stated enough that we knew they had WMDs once because we kept the receipts but we also knew they were expired because we manufactured them
Re: (Score:2)
Soviet Union. A UN-recognized member state.
Saddam Hussein. A dictator of a UN-recognized member state.
CCP. Political party in control of a UN-recognized member state.
Did the Soviet Union fall, or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? Or was it perhaps Mikhail Gorbachev?
Why would Saddam have weapons, and not Iraq, or the Iraqi Regional Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party?
Is the weaponry of the Communist Party of China not also that of the Peoples Republic of C
Re: Yea Right! The same US Intelligence that (Score:2)
And that is with out doing any Google search at all. Ftfy
Re: (Score:2)
On a side note my original comment was "off the top of my head" but I looked at it and it didn't look right for some reason. Probably, not enough coffee.
Re: Well, hate to rain on your parade. (Score:2)
Yeah, if you ignore how it actually played out, which isn't the way you describe i. You've got parts of the timelines wrong, you don't understand the geography, and you leave out the relevant contribution of Trump which completely changed the Chinese stance on allowing the WHO into the country.
But keep living in your bubble.
Re: Who trusts U.S. intelligence community? (Score:2)
The same overwhelming evidence that keeps failing to materialise in the accusations on voter fraud? Yeah, thought so.
At this point the fact you can't see a smear campaign for what it is, is no longer a surprise. The Tea Party Cultists have their claws firmly in your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
I note slashdot hasn't raised my expectations of the degradation it has become, maybe lowered it a bit with its lack of valid certificates. Kaspersky antivirus indicates slashdot is a dangerous site, that surprised me as I used to frequent this site a lot more. Reminds me of what became of Usenet. On the positive side should the conspiracy theorist prove to be right, again, it'll be a good thing considering who will be left to shut down the NWO technocracy oligarchy.
Eric Clapton: "This has gotta stop" https [youtube.com]