Author Topic: Covid Lab Leak Theory  (Read 15638 times)

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 43788
Re: Covid Lab Leak Theory
« Reply #100 on: May 23, 2026, 03:34:37 PM »
I don't "believe" that I make decisions based facts, evidence, and common sense.  That's literally what I do.  I follow the facts wherever they lead.  And I've said things on this board that probably everyone at some point has disagreed with.

I've never said I'm always correct.  I'm not.  That is a straw man.  I've been wrong about a lot of things.  I change my mind all the time.  Like about Trump.  I devoted an entire thread to tracking how badly I thought he would lose in 2016, using the fact that the majority of primary votes went to other candidates.  And we see how that prediction turned out. 

Regarding Covid, why would you place any stock in the "consensus" when they were so incredibly dishonest and so wrong about the pandemic?  I knew nothing about pandemics before Covid.  When I started listening to the unbiased experts, I learned so much.  And a lot of what I learned conflicted with the "consensus."

A refresher:

- Fauci treated Covid the same way he treated HIV and AIDS when it first developed.  Do you remember how he and the "consensus" tried to tell us it was not a gay disease and that everyone had the same risk?  That was a lie.  Just like with Covid, there was a discreet group of people at risk:  people having gay/anal sex, intravenous drug users, people getting blood transfusions, and people with third world health immune systems.   

- They did the same thing with Covid.  Covid (as a deadly virus) targeted discreet groups:  the elderly with comorbidites, the obese, and immuno-comprmised people.  It was lethal for those groups.  For everyone else, it was largely like the cold or flu.  My first clue that we were overstating the risk was when the study first came out in Italy (?) where the average age of people dying was over 80.  Then the people dying here early on were in nursing homes. 

- The "consensus" cooked the books regarding the death toll, where people who died "with" Covid were listed as dying "from" Covid.

- I learned that kids are not effective transmitters of the virus and do not get seriously ill or die from it.  Minuscule numbers.  So we should have never shut down the schools.

- I learned that when a virus is out in the community, lockdowns are ineffective.  So we should not have shut down the country, even though the "consensus" said we should.  Remember 14 days to slow the spread?

- I learned that natural immunity was as or more effective than the vaccines, despite what the "consensus" said.

- I learned that the lockdowns interfered with herd immunity, which actually made the pandemic last longer.

- I listened while people from the CDC, to talking heads, to the POTUS lied to us and said the vaccines would stop the spread of the virus. 

- I heard Facui and the "consensus" tell us that masks would stop the spread of the virus.  Wrong.

- I watched while they tried to force essentially the entire country to take an experimental vaccine, when that vaccine neither stopped you from catching nor spreading the virus.

- I heard the "consensus" tell us that six feet of social distancing was required and based on science, only to later learn that they pulled six feet out of their rear end, that effective social distancing was more like about 30 feet, and they picked 6 because it would be easier to sell to the public.

- I saw how Fauci and his gangsters tried to censor anything that contradicted their narrative.  And now we see exactly why he wanted a pardon.

There is more, but given this, why in God's name would I give any credence to the "consensus"? 

I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at the consensus, but you still have to think for yourself and see if what they are saying makes sennse.  For example, a friend of mine who actually recently passed away was mad at me during the pandemic because she said that we had a crisis in Hawaii with Covid patients being quarantined, taking up hospital space, and that we only had about 500 ventilators in the entire state.  (Her husband is a doctor.). When I asked how many Covid patients are actually using ventilators, she lost her mind, started telling me "you're not a doctor," etc.  I said:  "yeah, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."  That didn't go over too well.  ;D. The point was:  how could the limited number of ventilators be a crisis unless they were actually being monopolized by Covid patients. 

But I digress.  If you actually look at the evidence and think about this logically it's hard to come any other reasonable conclusion.

I noticed that of all things you learned about COVID, you did not mention that you learned and decided that the COVID virus came from a Wuhan Lab leak and not zoonosis. I thought that is what we were discussing.

We were also discussing consensus. A consensus is a general or widespread agreement among a group of people. People can agree about something or reach consensus and they can be wrong. 

The commonalities with the initial reaction to the COVID and HIV viruses could be applied to all new diseases/viruses especially when they reach pandemic proportions. You are correct, the so called "experts" got many things about this pandemic wrong, this is to be expected. They and the public worldwide likely over-reacted to the COVID virus. For many folks, the overreaction was the result of fear of the unknown. Most people believe it is better to be safe than sorry. This is entirely normal. evolutionary psychology, human biology, and sociology all explain why people disproportionately overreact to unknown health threats.


   

   

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11620
Re: Covid Lab Leak Theory
« Reply #101 on: May 24, 2026, 02:30:01 AM »


So much for that

"SARS-CoV-2 has continued to evolve as it moves through the population, and we have learned more about its pathogenicity and transmission determinants. As previously commented in The Lancet Microbe, one of these determinants is the unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) on its spike protein.1 While it has been proposed that the FCS might have been engineered, it is becoming clearer that natural selection is, in fact, the driving factor in its acquisition and functionality, through recombination and epistasis.
Central to this concept is the highly dynamic molecular nature of the SARS-CoV-2 spike, which is synthesised as a trimer with its three receptor (ACE2)-binding domains initially in a closed conformation. When an FCS is present, the spike encounters the intracellular protease furin on its way out of the cell, which processes and separates the S1 and S2 subdomains, imparting a relaxation in the protein and allowing one or more receptor-binding domains to flip up—the open conformation—markedly increasing receptor engagement and driving the transmissibility of the virus.2 The spike thus reversibly samples its open-trimer conformations and the FCS promotes this, but not exclusively.3 However, this sampling comes at some cost; if there are too many “up” domains the spike becomes unstable, which poses a problem as the virus can now shed S1 and lose transmissibility. The virus therefore exists in a transmission window, but its FCS has functionally stayed in place—as for Leigh Van Valen's so-called Red Queen hypothesis—through sequence changes elsewhere in the spike. For SARS-CoV-2, the best known of these changes was D614G, which arose and became embedded within lineage B just a few months after the initial outbreak. 614G markedly increases infectivity and is a “gateway mutation” upon which all the specific FCS changes in the variants of concern were built.4 Lineage A viruses seemed to have solved the problem slightly differently (Q613H)—eg, with the A.23.1 variant5—and other gateway mutations have followed suit (H655Y).4 Eight of the latest omicron variants have all three (Q613H, D614G, and H655Y).6 These gateway mutations cooperate epistatically to modulate the problematic FCS.
The FCS problem is well illustrated by the rapidity with which it is often lost upon virus adaptation to cell culture, both through point mutations and deletions.7 In reality, the FCS is not just an on-off switch but is highly regulated, and has in fact been incrementally optimising itself through mutations at the FCS in the major variants of concern—alpha, delta, and omicron—allowing the virus to stay within its transmission window (although in reality easing forward—ie, not quite the “same place” as with the Red Queen).
SARS-CoV-2 is not unique in this regard and many other betacoronaviruses have an FCS that is highly adaptable. Laboratory strains of HCoV-OC43 have point mutations in the FCS, presumably to also gain stability, and as the coronaviruses causing seasonal endemic infections are further explored, there are clear examples of genetic changes that structurally position the flexible FCS loop to better engage its furin activator. This is demonstrated in a genotype I virus with a four amino acid downstream insertion;8 whether this is truly a pathogenesis determinant or a transmission determinant remains to be seen. Recent work on HCoV-HKU1 has also shown the highly dynamic nature of the open-closed conformation of its spike, but in this case with its natural FCS removed for protein expression and the conformational changes regulated by sialoglycan binding.9
The spike is adaptable and the FCS clearly makes a difference, but—in the end—it is no smoking gun."


The thing continued to show adaptations that were novel- were they engineering it in real time? over the months? and releasing each one?

All this is based on a book by two people, which has been discredited

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1995820X23000470?via%3Dihub

these are naturally occurring in bats, furin sites- zoonosis....


Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 43788
Re: Covid Lab Leak Theory
« Reply #102 on: May 24, 2026, 05:24:22 PM »
Wow! This is a lot to take in. Most of this information is way, way over my head, but I do understand the basics of the article. At the least, bats played a significant role in spreading the virus.

The truth is, I never much liked bats even though they are a protected species not only in the U.S but in many other countries as well. As best I can remember, I have not seen any bats in the area. And yet they are fairly common in Western Oregon. I have mostly lived in homes that were and are near the Willamette River over the past 60 years. Bats are known to set up roosts in people's attics, especially near bodies of water.