WWWP

Him and my 21 year old Life Coach sister who has never been out of Wyoming

Snowflakes

__________________

#DEMODFROWNLAND
#TERMLIMITSFORMODERATORS

Anteater

jwb, do you know what defines a "genetically modified virus" versus something that doesn't meet that classification? Those scientists were not asked to account for those kinds of questions, but only whether or not there were signs of intentional, specific modification to make it function a certain way. Their conclusions do not take into account what I listed a page or so ago in regards to the definition of a "genetically modified virus".

I'm not disagreeing with their observations on the spike proteins and such. My point of disagreement is the overall conclusion because their conclusion doesn't take spontaneous mutation or the other things I mentioned into consideration.

If the virus they had in the lab was forced to spontaneously mutate (a process where you really can't control the exact outcome) as part of their GOF minutia, then that completely sidesteps everything they talked about in the analysis I read from what you linked me to. It would also explain why the symptoms are so wide-ranging and it's beyond-expected virulence. They forced it to mutate under strict conditions and never had the opportunity to study it afterwards. I doubt anyone working there wanted something they were still in the process of studying to escape.

I'd be more inclined to think less conspiratorially about the situation under other circumstances, but the way that the Chinese government handled the lab, personnel and also warning signs from the U.S. embassy less than two years ago about that lab's lack of procedural care all point to something other than the mainstream narrative.

__________________
Anteater's 21 Fav Albums Of 2020

Anteater's Daily Tune Roulette

Frownland

"What these here scientists don't understand is *belch* Chinaman bad."

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

jwb

Yes I understand what you're saying and it's baseless speculation to prop up a conspiracy theory you have 0 evidence for.

They were asked to determine whether it was a lab invention/mistake or something that evolved naturally, and they determined the latter. You are somehow assuming they wouldn't take into consideration the mechanism you're arguing could've produced it despite the fact that they do this for a living and you don't.

All based on what? China is corrupt? Blood clots? Or is it just to defend your boy Trump?

Anteater

I'm not "assuming" they didn't take it into consideration. I looked at what was originally published in Nature plus your story, both which showcased that they clearly did NOT take it into consideration. It actually bothers me quite a bit that it doesn't come up at all even though it's relevant to understanding the present situation.

I don't think anything I've brought up here is unreasonable. I'm asking questions based on a wide plethora of established facts, including China's weird (and well documented) behavior in light of the coronavirus and an established history of a lab engaging in questionable behavior fully funded to engage in GOF research.

When I see people as young as me dying from something that kills people who are elderly, I question the conclusions of scientists who don't account for those symptoms and the implications. It's proof that they don't really understand what they're dealing with..and they're supposed to be the ones who live and breathe the subject.

__________________
Anteater's 21 Fav Albums Of 2020

Anteater's Daily Tune Roulette

Frownland

If you're basing your understanding of science on journalistic interpretations of science, you're gonna have a bad time.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Exo

But we can't listen to the scientists! They have agendas! They're trying to push their science!

__________________
LastFM

SUPREME POO BAH MODERATOR EXTRAORDINAIRE

jwb

What in the articles specifically tells you that they didn't take it into consideration?

Every single scientific article I've seen has said not only that it's not a bioweapon but that they believe it evolved naturally based on the genome sequencing. You think that every scientist saying this is unaware of GOF research? You might as well just say they're in on the conspiracy... It would almost be more plausible.

Anteater

Let them livestream on Twitch then. #Freedom

There are seasoned medical professionals right now claiming all kinds of drugs are working against Covid-19 and that both the mainstream media and social media are censoring them when they try to go directly to the masses. Should we listen to them?

In the article, they talk about specific things they look for to determine if a virus was purposely modified. CRISPR-esque stuff. However, they don't talk about how viruses can also be "forced" to mutate without touching or modifying gene sequences. Since it wasn't brought up, my guess is that it is impossible to distinguish whether a virus was "forced" to mutate and evolve in a conditioned environment versus a virus that has mutated naturally out in nature. In either case, a human didn't "execute" a modification: the virus simply changed on it's own.

Since a scientist wouldn't be able to differentiate a virus that mutated like that, there's no way to make a determination.

__________________
Anteater's 21 Fav Albums Of 2020

Anteater's Daily Tune Roulette

jwb

^this message brought to you by Clorox