Origin is simply "whence it came". Stored samples, for example, could've been used in any number of ways. I think we agree that something "leaked" or being released into thin air and transmitting from person to person is mechanistically implausible, but that's what the "leak" aspect of "lab leak" asserts.
My understanding of a "lab leak" is the same as yours: unintentional.
Yes, I always thought the crucial fact in favour of a lab leak was the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology - and the implausibility of the coincidence that it would emerge on the doorstep of the world center for engineering coronaviruses, rather than in the caves of yunnan where the bats etc actually are.
But then I realized there is another thing unique to WIV. It is also one of only labs in the world that can *detect new viruses* - and when I say new, I mean newly identified, not newly emerged. You can't just scan a sample for any viruses it contains - unless you have WIV capabilities you have to know what to look for, so anything you find can't be new.
So it seems to me covid had been circulating for a while, but then there was a cluster of patients in wuhan. Anywhere else they would have been ignored but on the doorstep of a lab doing coronavirus engineering, you can imagine that this would be one of the few places where samples would be taken to actually look for new viruses - and where you could actually find them.
To me this significantly increases the likelihood that covid was already circulating widely at the end of 2019. Its not particularly bad of a virus, and no deaths were noticed. Then WIV looked for new coronaviruses in some patients on its doorstep, possibly because they were worried about lab leaks. They found covid, and the rest is history.
It follows that essentially ALL the excess deaths were caused by the panicked response - neglect of old people in homes written off to die (or helped with midazolam), patients put on ventilators as a means of infection control, and also the sheer panic induced by government propaganda.
Yes, it's similar to the analogy that pointing a hubble telescope pointed in the sky would find "novel stars", however they've likely always been there...
Applying such PCR methodologies using "Sars-Cov-2" sequences would most likely yield similar results for histology slides from different organs preserved over the years. Or just resume mass PCR testing for "SARS-CoV-2" this winter with the same religious zeal as before.
"Two complete 1918 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic virus genomes characterized by next-generation sequencing using RNA isolated from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded autopsy lung tissue samples along with evidence of secondary bacterial co-infection"
Yongli Xiao, Zong-Mei Sheng, Stephanie L Williams, Jeffery K Taubenberger
How about the sequence identical to US9587003 (oncological protein promoter) Patent by Moderna that shows up in the furan cleavage site too? Apparently that's a one in 3 Trillion possibility. This is another round of those with common sense... Who will pass this test?
Quick note: Lab Origin and Lab Leak are NOT the same thing.
"Leak" is a mechanistic proposition. See table and see also footnote 3 for Jay B's definition of Lab Leak https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/do-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2-matter
"Lab Origin" is not a mechanistic assertion - only source.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/thinking-about-lab-leak
So you mean like this?
- Lab Origin is broader and doesn’t imply fault or failure; it could include possibilities like research on zoonotic viruses or stored samples.
- Lab Leak narrows the focus to an unintentional release, which carries implications for lab safety protocols and accountability.
Origin is simply "whence it came". Stored samples, for example, could've been used in any number of ways. I think we agree that something "leaked" or being released into thin air and transmitting from person to person is mechanistically implausible, but that's what the "leak" aspect of "lab leak" asserts.
My understanding of a "lab leak" is the same as yours: unintentional.
For me "release" is intentional.
Yes, I always thought the crucial fact in favour of a lab leak was the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology - and the implausibility of the coincidence that it would emerge on the doorstep of the world center for engineering coronaviruses, rather than in the caves of yunnan where the bats etc actually are.
But then I realized there is another thing unique to WIV. It is also one of only labs in the world that can *detect new viruses* - and when I say new, I mean newly identified, not newly emerged. You can't just scan a sample for any viruses it contains - unless you have WIV capabilities you have to know what to look for, so anything you find can't be new.
So it seems to me covid had been circulating for a while, but then there was a cluster of patients in wuhan. Anywhere else they would have been ignored but on the doorstep of a lab doing coronavirus engineering, you can imagine that this would be one of the few places where samples would be taken to actually look for new viruses - and where you could actually find them.
To me this significantly increases the likelihood that covid was already circulating widely at the end of 2019. Its not particularly bad of a virus, and no deaths were noticed. Then WIV looked for new coronaviruses in some patients on its doorstep, possibly because they were worried about lab leaks. They found covid, and the rest is history.
It follows that essentially ALL the excess deaths were caused by the panicked response - neglect of old people in homes written off to die (or helped with midazolam), patients put on ventilators as a means of infection control, and also the sheer panic induced by government propaganda.
And none were caused by the virus.
Yes, it's similar to the analogy that pointing a hubble telescope pointed in the sky would find "novel stars", however they've likely always been there...
Applying such PCR methodologies using "Sars-Cov-2" sequences would most likely yield similar results for histology slides from different organs preserved over the years. Or just resume mass PCR testing for "SARS-CoV-2" this winter with the same religious zeal as before.
"Two complete 1918 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic virus genomes characterized by next-generation sequencing using RNA isolated from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded autopsy lung tissue samples along with evidence of secondary bacterial co-infection"
Yongli Xiao, Zong-Mei Sheng, Stephanie L Williams, Jeffery K Taubenberger
mBio. 2024 Feb 13;15(3):e03218-23
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10936189/
If you can’t prove the existence of a virus, you can’t prove a virus leaked from a lab.
Well, what they do is they assert existence based on indirect methods such as the sequencing, etc. ...
It doesn’t prove existence and it certainly doesn’t prove pathogenicity.
How about the sequence identical to US9587003 (oncological protein promoter) Patent by Moderna that shows up in the furan cleavage site too? Apparently that's a one in 3 Trillion possibility. This is another round of those with common sense... Who will pass this test?
in 2016!!!!
What's the origin of this sequence?
At least this FoI documentation points against animal transfer theory:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-154314087