ADVERTISEMENT

3 new scientific studies reach the same conclusion on COVID-19’s origin

The papers mentioned in the OP showing clear evidence for spread radiating from the market area instead of from the Wuhan lab (20 miles away) has now been fully peer reviewed and published, with all of the conclusions intact.

bottom line: You see proximity-driven spread for any airborne virus. There is crystal clear proximity-driven spread centered on the wet market. There is no proximity-driven spread centered on the virology institute. There are also swab samples from areas in the market showing, specifically, which animal holding areas within the wet market were the hot spots.

This is a solved issue. There are some missing details, granted, such as which specific animals carried it and where did they come from. But they did not come from the virology institute.

LOL, did you tell that to the WHO?


The WHO's change of direction came Thursday in the first report by its Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens, known as SAGO.

The group agreed that the now-infamous Wuhan seafood market likely “played an important role” early in the pandemic because a number of patients in December 2019 had links to that site.

However, there are still “gaps in our knowledge,” it said, specifically about how the virus got to the market and where the first “spillover” between animals and humans happened.

The report recommended “further investigations” into the idea this could have happened in a laboratory, as well as “all other” possible routes.

China has previously suggested that Covid could have been imported into its country in frozen food. Thursday’s WHO report said the “cold chain” theory should be investigated further, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
LOL, did you tell that to the WHO?
As I said, there are some missing details, such as which specific animals carried it with them to the market, and where did they come from. That's a couple of the central questions that the WHO is asking to establish.

I also think that the WHO REGULARLY caves in to political pressures and says things that are nonsense from a scientific point of view. For instance, they won't even discount the crazy claim from some nuts in China that this was a virus unleashed on THEM by the USA.
 
LOL, did you tell that to the WHO?


The WHO's change of direction came Thursday in the first report by its Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens, known as SAGO.

The group agreed that the now-infamous Wuhan seafood market likely “played an important role” early in the pandemic because a number of patients in December 2019 had links to that site.

However, there are still “gaps in our knowledge,” it said, specifically about how the virus got to the market and where the first “spillover” between animals and humans happened.

The report recommended “further investigations” into the idea this could have happened in a laboratory, as well as “all other” possible routes.

China has previously suggested that Covid could have been imported into its country in frozen food. Thursday’s WHO report said the “cold chain” theory should be investigated further, too.
That was two months ago.
 
A working paper and a peer-reviewed published paper are not the same thing.

Are you really going to stand on WHO to make a point on this? I thought WHO had no credibility at all.

The facts provided haven't changed. The WHO has no credibility because it didn't blame the Chinese for causing millions of deaths and creating massive world health issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ulrey
A working paper and a peer-reviewed published paper are not the same thing.

Are you really going to stand on WHO to make a point on this? I thought WHO had no credibility at all.

Literally from the paper itself:

However, the observation that the preponderance of early cases were linked to the Huanan market does not establish that the pandemic originated there.
 
More like month and half. And? The article he's pumping up was released well before that. Is the SAGO going to update their views?
The preprint was released, this is the first release of the full, peer-reviewed manuscript with all data and methods.

A tour de force from a dream team of world virologists.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Crayfish57
The language is pretty clear

From the abstract: While there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

From the end of the intro section

Despite limited testing of live wildlife sold at the market, collectively, our results provide evidence that the Huanan market was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic and suggest that SARS-CoV-2 likely emerged from the live wildlife trade in China. However, events upstream of the market, as well as exact circumstances at the market, remain obscure, highlighting the need for further studies to understand and lower the risk of future pandemics.

No seeing much doubt from the experts, but they lack the JamieDimonsBalls perspective, I guess
 
The language is pretty clear

From the abstract: While there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

From the end of the intro section

Despite limited testing of live wildlife sold at the market, collectively, our results provide evidence that the Huanan market was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic and suggest that SARS-CoV-2 likely emerged from the live wildlife trade in China. However, events upstream of the market, as well as exact circumstances at the market, remain obscure, highlighting the need for further studies to understand and lower the risk of future pandemics.

No seeing much doubt from the experts, but they lack the JamieDiamondBalls perspective, I guess

Except the paper literally states that the pandemic may not have originated there:

However, the observation that the preponderance of early cases were linked to the Huanan market does not establish that the pandemic originated there.

Beyond that, even if it did stem from animal to human transmission, it doesn't absolve the Chinese of the blood on their hands. That's what's important.
 
The transmission of the virus to humans started there, but the incubation of the virus in a primary and likely a secondary host was in an unknown and probably rural area that provided the animals. You seem to think that since the animals were not born in the market (duh!) that is is some kind of gotcha. It isn't.

We don't know where the animals carrying the virus came from, but the outbreak in humans occurred at the market.

This isn't THAT complicated, except I guess for you.

And I don't see where the paper has any support whatsoever that the Chinese "have blood on their hands" other than the fact that live wild animal markets exist there.
 
Except the paper literally states that the pandemic may not have originated there:

However, the observation that the preponderance of early cases were linked to the Huanan market does not establish that the pandemic originated there.

Beyond that, even if it did stem from animal to human transmission, it doesn't absolve the Chinese of the blood on their hands. That's what's important.
I'm no scientist, but it sounds like you are dramatically taking this one sentence out of context.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ohio Guy
HEY, LOOK OVER THERE.

giphy.gif






and that giant stench isn't coming from that giant hog farm next door, it's coming from those rare wildflowers next to the hog farm.

to not believe the virus came from the lab is to have a huge belief in incredible coincidence.

we've never seen a full forensic audit of just who was funding the lab, and who was funding those funding the lab.

no doubt big money players were involved, and don't want the lab, or it's funders and it's funders' funders, blamed or investigated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
....to not believe the virus came from the lab is to have a huge belief in incredible coincidence.
To believe the virus came from the lab is to be thoroughly convinced that this all star team of top virologists just fabricated all of their data.

If the first infected humans spent much of their days 20-25 miles away from the Market, at the Institute, cases surrounding the Institute would have happened.

If you think that a virus was made and released in Columbus Indiana but the cases are centered around Bloomington and going down steadily in a circle from Ballantine Hall, I would start suspecting that something strange really happened in Ballentine. Or maybe Chemistry, since it is next door. ;)
 
To believe the virus came from the lab is to be thoroughly convinced that this all star team of top virologists just fabricated all of their data.

If the first infected humans spent much of their days 20-25 miles away from the Market, at the Institute, cases surrounding the Institute would have happened.

If you think that a virus was made and released in Columbus Indiana but the cases are centered around Bloomington and going down steadily in a circle from Ballantine Hall, I would start suspecting that something strange really happened in Ballentine. Or maybe Chemistry, since it is next door. ;)
Devil's advocate question:

What if the lab techs are really good at their jobs, and their job was to purposefully release the virus in the market? In other words, if it was an intentional release, and not a natural propagation, would it look any different than it does?

I'm not saying I subscribe to the idea of any conspiracy, here, of course. I'm just asking.
 
I suppose it's theoretically possible, but the motive is super dubious, and the process of infecting marketable animals at the institute, avoiding exposure yourself, and getting them in there to be sold and to kill your neighbors seems like a super goofy scenario for the evil theoretical bioterrorist.
 
I suppose it's theoretically possible, but the motive is super dubious, and the process of infecting marketable animals at the institute, avoiding exposure yourself, and getting them in there to be sold and to kill your neighbors seems like a super goofy scenario for the evil theoretical bioterrorist.
Oh, I have no doubt it's a dumb idea. I'm just asking if it's possible that the data would look similar to what they actually look like if that happened.
 
The papers mentioned in the OP showing clear evidence for spread radiating from the market area instead of from the Wuhan lab (20 miles away) has now been fully peer reviewed and published, with all of the conclusions intact.

bottom line: You see proximity-driven spread for any airborne virus. There is crystal clear proximity-driven spread centered on the wet market. There is no proximity-driven spread centered on the virology institute. There are also swab samples from areas in the market showing, specifically, which animal holding areas within the wet market were the hot spots.

This is a solved issue. There are some missing details, granted, such as which specific animals carried it and where did they come from. But they did not come from the virology institute.


papers etc often show what those funding the authors want them to show.

universities, think tanks, organizations, are all compromised.

different topic, but the implications apply.

must watch for anyone discussing the covid origin, or many other things.


 
Last edited:
papers etc often show what those funding the authors want them to show.
The Journal Science demands complete disclosure of every funding source


Funding: This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. 75N93021C00015 (MW). JIL acknowledges support from the NIH (5T32AI007244-38). SAG acknowledges support from the NIH (F32AI152341). JEP acknowledges support from the NIH (T15LM011271). JOW acknowledges support from NIH (AI135992 and AI136056). DLR acknowledges support of the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12014/12) and the Wellcome Trust (220977/Z/20/Z). MAS, PL and AR acknowledge the support of the Wellcome Trust (Collaborators Award 206298/Z/17/Z – ARTIC network), the European Research Council (grant agreement no. 725422 – ReservoirDOCS) and NIH grant R01AI153044. ALR is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as part of the Coronavirus Variants Rapid Response Network (CoVaRR-Net; CIHR FRN#175622) and acknowledges that VIDO receives operational funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation – Major Science Initiatives Fund and from the Government of Saskatchewan through Innovation Saskatchewan and the Ministry of Agriculture. MK receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 874735 (VEO, Versatile Emerging infectious disease Observatory). RFG is supported by the NIH (R01AI132223, R01AI132244, U19AI142790, U54CA260581, U54HG007480, OT2HL158260), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, the Wellcome Trust Foundation, Gilead Sciences, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme. ECH is supported by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (FL170100022). KGA is supported by the NIH (U19AI135995, U01AI151812, and UL1TR002550.

Minimal pharma funding (Gilead is mentioned, probably since one author is an Hepatitis C Virus expert, which Gilead made a cure for), no China funding, no southeast Asia funding at all. I don't see red flags.

Some of these scientists are future Nobel laureates. This isn't your average disclosure, not that one of the highest impact journals there is (Science) publishes much crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
The Journal Science demands complete disclosure of every funding source


Funding: This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. 75N93021C00015 (MW). JIL acknowledges support from the NIH (5T32AI007244-38). SAG acknowledges support from the NIH (F32AI152341). JEP acknowledges support from the NIH (T15LM011271). JOW acknowledges support from NIH (AI135992 and AI136056). DLR acknowledges support of the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12014/12) and the Wellcome Trust (220977/Z/20/Z). MAS, PL and AR acknowledge the support of the Wellcome Trust (Collaborators Award 206298/Z/17/Z – ARTIC network), the European Research Council (grant agreement no. 725422 – ReservoirDOCS) and NIH grant R01AI153044. ALR is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as part of the Coronavirus Variants Rapid Response Network (CoVaRR-Net; CIHR FRN#175622) and acknowledges that VIDO receives operational funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation – Major Science Initiatives Fund and from the Government of Saskatchewan through Innovation Saskatchewan and the Ministry of Agriculture. MK receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 874735 (VEO, Versatile Emerging infectious disease Observatory). RFG is supported by the NIH (R01AI132223, R01AI132244, U19AI142790, U54CA260581, U54HG007480, OT2HL158260), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, the Wellcome Trust Foundation, Gilead Sciences, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme. ECH is supported by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (FL170100022). KGA is supported by the NIH (U19AI135995, U01AI151812, and UL1TR002550.

Minimal pharma funding (Gilead is mentioned, probably since one author is an Hepatitis C Virus expert, which Gilead made a cure for), no China funding, no southeast Asia funding at all. I don't see red flags.

Some of these scientists are future Nobel laureates. This isn't your average disclosure, not that one of the highest impact journals there is (Science) publishes much crap.
papers etc often show what those funding the authors want them to show.

universities, think tanks, organizations, are all compromised.

different topic, but the implications apply.

must watch for anyone discussing the covid origin, or many other things.



A) did you investigate who was funding all of those?

no, you didn't.

B), who is funding the project, has absolutely nothing to do with who all is funding those involved in the project, and what all their sources of revenue are.. (just as exposed in the video i posted).

you're being an idiot.

watch the video again. then again, till you get what's actually going on.


 
Last edited:
Every grant and every funding source for every single author was disclosed. Can you not read?
 
Every grant and every funding source for every single author was disclosed. Can you not read?

no, it wasn't in the slightest.

who's funding the project was listed. not all the revenues sources of all the individuals involved.

nor was who is funding the organizations funding the project. or who is funding the individuals in those organizations.

you're the one who can't read.

or figure anything out on his own.


 
The papers mentioned in the OP showing clear evidence for spread radiating from the market area instead of from the Wuhan lab (20 miles away) has now been fully peer reviewed and published, with all of the conclusions intact.

bottom line: You see proximity-driven spread for any airborne virus. There is crystal clear proximity-driven spread centered on the wet market. There is no proximity-driven spread centered on the virology institute. There are also swab samples from areas in the market showing, specifically, which animal holding areas within the wet market were the hot spots.

This is a solved issue. There are some missing details, granted, such as which specific animals carried it and where did they come from. But they did not come from the virology institute.
did it come from you then? You are just fukking obsessed in unhealthy ways.

Covid isnt an accident and never was . Do you spend every moment of your existence obsessed with stuff like this and Trump? Its actually amusing if a living body werent wasted upon it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sglowrider
The preprint was released, this is the first release of the full, peer-reviewed manuscript with all data and methods.

A tour de force from a dream team of world virologists.
JFC , what if some people told you the Easter Bunny was real.....................The '' virus'' true victim is people like you, you have devoted thousands of hrs to all your BS about this. It was developed by the Chinese and released by the Chinese, you can find a tour de force that can tell you your shit is blue and you will believe it. Doesnt make it true.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sglowrider
To believe the virus came from the lab is to be thoroughly convinced that this all star team of top virologists just fabricated all of their data.

If the first infected humans spent much of their days 20-25 miles away from the Market, at the Institute, cases surrounding the Institute would have happened.

If you think that a virus was made and released in Columbus Indiana but the cases are centered around Bloomington and going down steadily in a circle from Ballantine Hall, I would start suspecting that something strange really happened in Ballentine. Or maybe Chemistry, since it is next door. ;)
Again, JFC if you are so stupid to believe this just happened by accident from people eating weird shit like they have been doing forever, you are the one needing examined. Seriously how much time do you spend on this every day? It was man made, let go by man in a specific time. You can find an all star team of anything you want but that is what happened.
 
And Paul is a doctor while Fauci is just another Dem political operative like that snake Vindman.
No Fauci isn't another Dem political operative but he is a doctor trying to cover his ass because there was research going on at that lab that the US was not suppose to support but was.

Anyone who attempts to track it to you and your lab will have to admit that it seems more likely to have come from the market and natural sources.
That is a good take... the lab sure wouldn't want to do anything that would lead back to them and maybe cut of funding from the US.

It's all about motive. Why would there be such a conspiracy? Why would people believe such a conspiracy? Which motive is most likely?
What better way to throw the world into turmoil? Didn't you ever get suspicious of the virus rampaging thru all other countries while China had essentially no cases? But the virus mutated and now it's hitting them hard so the lockdown defense don't work.
 
No Fauci isn't another Dem political operative but he is a doctor trying to cover his ass because there was research going on at that lab that the US was not suppose to support but was.


That is a good take... the lab sure wouldn't want to do anything that would lead back to them and maybe cut of funding from the US.


What better way to throw the world into turmoil? Didn't you ever get suspicious of the virus rampaging thru all other countries while China had essentially no cases? But the virus mutated and now it's hitting them hard so the lockdown defense don't work.
I disagree with you again, Fauci is a left leaning Democrat operative. Washington DC is owned by China.
 
What better way to throw the world into turmoil? Didn't you ever get suspicious of the virus rampaging thru all other countries while China had essentially no cases? But the virus mutated and now it's hitting them hard so the lockdown defense don't work.

Where did you get the idea China had essentially no cases?
 
The facts provided haven't changed. The WHO has no credibility because it didn't blame the Chinese for causing millions of deaths and creating massive world health issues.

Because blaming China changes anything? or important as a means to deflect from what Trump did wrong?
 
The multi-national team of authors of two studies released Saturday (150 pages, caveat: not yet peer-reviewed) concluded that the coronavirus was very likely present in live mammals sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in late 2019 and suggested that the virus spilled over into people working or shopping there on two separate occasions.

A third study was released on Friday from a Chinese group that had swabbed walls, floors and other surfaces inside the market, as well as meat still in freezers and refrigerators, right after authorities had closed the market, though no live animals remained there. They reported that the Huanan market samples included two evolutionary branches of the virus, known as lineages A and B, both of which had been circulating in early COVID cases in China. Earlier evidence had suggested that the market was only linked to lineage B, and therefore couldn’t be responsible for the initial outbreak of lineage A.

The studies together suggest at least two spillover events occurred at the market, at least one for each lineage.
press reports:


two of the papers:


“It’s an extraordinarily clear picture that the pandemic started at the Huanan market,” said Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona.

“It’s very convincing,” said Dr. Thea Fischer, a public health researcher at the University of Copenhagen, who was not involved in the new studies. The question of whether the virus spilled over from animals “has now been settled with a very high degree of evidence, and thus confidence.”

But others pointed to some gaps that still remained. The new papers did not, for example, identify an animal at the market that spread the virus to humans.

The core info comes from a group of WHO researchers pinning down the location of the first 164 cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan over the course of December 2019. The highest density of December cases centered around the market — a relatively tiny spot in a city of 11 million people. Those cases included not just people who were initially linked to the market, but others who lived in the surrounding neighborhood.

map-who-800.png


The next 737 cases that followed emerged further and further from the market. The researchers ran tests that showed it was extremely unlikely that such a pattern could be produced merely by chance.

map-weibo-800.png

The study on collected tissues points to live animals. The researchers reconstructed the floor plan of the Huanan market based on the WHO report, the leaked Chinese CDC study and other sources. They then mapped the locations of positive environmental samples, finding that they clustered in the area where live animals were sold. Strikingly, five of the samples came from a single stall. That stall had been visited in 2014 by one of the co-authors of the new studies, Edward Holmes, a virus expert at the University of Sydney. On that trip, he had taken a photograph of a cage of raccoon dogs for sale at the time.

Below is the floor map of the market. The lower left area (red) is where live animals had been caged.

market-distribution-900.jpg

Kristian Andersen, a virus expert at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, and the senior co-author of one of the new studies, said it was important to figure out where the wild mammals for sale at Huanan came from, and to look for evidence of past outbreaks in those places. It’s possible, for example, that villagers at the sources of that wildlife still carry antibodies from exposures to coronaviruses.

“If I had to say what would be most helpful to do now, it would be those types of studies,” he said.

--------
If you cling to “accidental lab leak” theory then I guess you could argue that it was leaked specifically to lab people who really were avid shoppers in the market, 20 milkes away, and they spread it more to shopping buddies than to coworkers. I have no reason to believe that would make any sense, though.

If you cling to “intentional lab-created bioweapon” theory then I guess you could argue that it was designed to first take out people in the market. That makes even less sense.
BUMPED For Clarity!

This is exactly wrong.

It is so wrong, and took so much effort to produce, To be TOTALLY FALSE...that it was and remains intentional..

Somebody had a job to do....
 
BUMPED For Clarity!

This is exactly wrong.

It is so wrong, and took so much effort to produce, To be TOTALLY FALSE...that it was and remains intentional..

Somebody had a job to do....
Yes what can’t be bought and paid for these days?

The scientific method is intended to be free from agenda bias … which appears to delay the revelation of the truth. When will we know when the truth will no longer win out?

So which category among liars, damn liars, and statistics does the academic study supporting the ‘wet market origin’ belong?

I know some of you won’t resist answering these Socratic, rhetorical questions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mas-sa-suta
BUMPED For Clarity!

This is exactly wrong.

It is so wrong, and took so much effort to produce, To be TOTALLY FALSE...that it was and remains intentional..

Somebody had a job to do....
I have to give shooter a 7 for trolling on that one. Not his best but a pretty good job. If he is that convinced of this, boy did the govt and msm completely Hannibelize him like Ray Liotta in Silence of the Lambs. Would insert the gif but some here would go whacko.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT