The Trump denunciation/vindication lag is six to twelve months

This entry was posted in COVID, International, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The Trump denunciation/vindication lag is six to twelve months

  1. Not Trampis says:

    If that is the Jeffrey Sachs I know his expertise is n economics not this field.

    As the Australian who went to China and examined this said you cannot say it is impossible that it came out of a lab but is was highly highly unlikely.

  2. Buccaneer says:

    As a lay person, I don’t find the official line of two strains of a highly contagious pandemic causing deadly virus jumping from another species coincidentally within two weeks of each other in the same location there is a lab doing experiments on the exact same virus, very convincing.

    Somehow, we’re expected to believe that a once in a century event can happen twice in the same location within two weeks and that is more likely than poor infection controls at a secretive lab that tried to cover it’s involvement in the research in question.

    I don’t claim to know what happened here, but lots of people don’t seem to be playing it straight.

  3. C.L. says:

    As Sachs points out, none of those quickie visitors (including the Australian goose) actually conducted a scientific investigation.

    Funny how the left rolls: back then, it was “racist” to criticise China (because Trump did). Now that Biden and Pelosi are teasing China as a distraction from their domestic catastrophe, criticising China is not only cool but mandatory.

    Clowns not to be taken seriously.

  4. Not Trampis says:

    Typical of CL in doing a Davidson. Science has articles up showing the lab theory has few legs. The probability of it occurring is so low it is unlikely to have occurred.

    Err they have. They have not ruled out anything because at this stage you cannot rule anything out.
    All you can say is it is very unlikely to haver happened. Trump would never understand this.

    The Chinese only have themsleves to blame by not providing all information.

  5. Lee says:

    If that is the Jeffrey Sachs I know his expertise is n economics not this field.

    Coming from the “expert” on everything that is absolutely hilarious!

  6. C.L. says:

    Who to believe…

    The professorial head of the Lancet’s COVID-19 origins commission or Trampoline?

  7. Prospero says:

    Bucco, the “leftist trash” explains the very issue your “gut reaction” tells you to doubt.

    They found it is exceedingly unlikely that a single virus would jump into humans and quickly split into two distinct variants.

    Far more likely, was that the virus had been circulating in animals for long enough to split into multiple variants, two of which then jumped separately into humans. Multi-virus jumps have been seen when COVID-19 jumped from minks on Dutch farms to humans, and when SARS and MERS also jumped into humans.

    If the COVID-19 virus originated in a lab, as some conspiracy theories suggest, you’d expect a single introduction into humans – rather than two distinct viral lineages. And both strains were found in samples taken from Huanan market. “That, I think, is pretty good evidence,” says Dwyer.

    Funny, but my gut reaction is that is a solid argument.

    On your case, you have one lab person infected with one strain, goes to the market (which seems to be at the centre of all subsequent infections), and one week later, another lab person infected with a different strain also goes to the market?

    You also have no basis for judging the probability of catching it from animals as “one in a hundred year” thing.

    It’s like the Trump was a victim of voter fraud: your evidence comes down to “And that looked suspicious to me” and you think that’s conclusive proof.

    Right wingers have become numbskulls on the question of science and expertise.

  8. Prospero says:

    Sachs is an economist. There is no dispute about that. A dubious qualification for judging scientific evidence, as Sinclair Davidson and climate change showed.

  9. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    The Chinese only have themsleves to blame by not providing all information.

    As the fascist left is so fond of saying, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. The Chinese have been hiding everything about the Wuhan lab since the beginning. What do they fear?

  10. Boambee John says:

    Perverse Preposterous

    Funny, but my gut reaction is that is a solid argument.

    I’m not sure that your guts are the basis for a scientific response.

    Right wingers have become numbskulls on the question of science and expertise.

    Left wingers have always been numbskulls on pretty much everything, science (Hello Lysenko), economics (Hello pretty much every leftist), and so on.

  11. Prospero says:

    economics (Hello pretty much every leftist), and so on.

    Isn’t your Steve Kates inspired idea that Keynesian economics is a Leftist disaster that has dominated the field for nearly 100 years? And yet, somehow, the West has grown in wealth under this (alleged) Leftist error?

  12. Buccaneer says:

    They found it is exceedingly unlikely that a single virus would jump into humans and quickly split into two distinct variants.

    I think you misunderstand my point, I don’t disagree with this, what I am suggesting is that the most likely scenario is that the lab created two version of a similar virus that leaked from the same lab within the same period, before they realised there was a breach in protocol.

    If as we understand, the purpose of the program was to examine how pathogens might transition to humans from animals, then it is unlikely to program is only examining one pathway for each pathogen.

    I would be happy for the lab to provide the relevant information for public discussion.

  13. Not Trampis says:

    please the journal science has a number of peer reviewed articles on this subject if you can read

  14. Boambee John says:

    ROFLMAO. After KlimateGate, Non Mentis still believes in “peer review”. That’s as bad as believing in Keynesian economics.

  15. Buccaneer says:

    From the main source quoted by your study, that you clearly didn’t bother to read.

    Many of the early cases were associated with the Huanan market, but a similar number of cases were
    associated with other markets and some were not associated with any markets. Transmission within the
    wider community in December could account for cases not associated with the Huanan market which,
    together with the presence of early cases not associated with that market, could suggest that the Huanan
    market was not the original source of the outbreak. Milder cases that were not identified, however,
    could provide the link between the Huanan Market and early cases without an apparent link to the
    market. No firm conclusion therefore about the role of the Huanan Market can be drawn.

  16. Not Trampis says:

    do you mean like this

    Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic and that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from activities associated with live wildlife trade. Spatial analyses within the market show that SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples, including cages, carts, and freezers, were associated with activities concentrated in the southwest corner of the market. This is the same section where vendors were selling live mammals, including raccoon dogs, hog badgers, and red foxes, immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple positive samples were taken from one stall known to have sold live mammals, and the water drain proximal to this stall, as well as other sewerages and a nearby wildlife stall on the southwest side of the market, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (24). These findings suggest that infected animals were present at the Huanan market at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, we do not have access to any live animal samples from relevant species. Additional information, including sequencing data and deta.

    We aint ever going to get a firm conclusion but covid coming from the lab is simply not in the race.

  17. Buccaneer says:

    That’s because no one took any samples there…. wonder why that might be.

    It also doesn’t take a genius to work out that environmental samples with no live animal samples to accompany them equates to zero evidence of the Zoonotic theory of transmission.

    Now if you can show me where some samples were taken from the lab, I’ll take you seriously.

  18. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    We aint ever going to get a firm conclusion but covid coming from the lab is simply not in the race.

    Gutsy call from a fool who failed pre-school. Pray, tell us your qualifications in microbiology.

  19. Tel says:

    There’s solid proof that Dr Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance was doing gain of function research, in China, with coronavirus, targeting the ACE2 receptor. We know this … because Daszak documented his plan in his research grants, and also documented what he had achieved when applying for further research money.

    We also know that Daszak lied (by omission) when he joined the search party and went looking for the source of the virus … because while they were searching for the origin of COVID 19 he failed to mention any of the things he had been working on, and eventually he got booted off the UN commission investigating COVID as his fellow investigators no longer trusted him.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/06/scientist-connected-to-wuhan-lab-recused-from-un-commission-investigating-covid/

    This does not conclusively trace the process all the way from the gain of function research to the final virus … but oh boy there are a lot of similarities between what Daszak was working on, and what finally turned up running around the world in the pandemic.

    As a lay person, I don’t find the official line of two strains of a highly contagious pandemic causing deadly virus jumping from another species coincidentally within two weeks of each other in the same location there is a lab doing experiments on the exact same virus, very convincing.

    The exact same type of virus … and also the exact same human receptor (ACE2) that is the target of said virus … and that virus came out of the gate already remarkably well adapted to human infection … and the same guy who was involved tries his best to squelch any discussion of the research he had been doing.

    As the fascist left is so fond of saying, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. The Chinese have been hiding everything about the Wuhan lab since the beginning. What do they fear?

    It’s unlikely we will ever see the lab notebooks and get copies of the RNA sequencing data … those have no doubt been destroyed by now.

  20. Tel says:

    Funny, but my gut reaction is that is a solid argument.

    On your case, you have one lab person infected with one strain, goes to the market (which seems to be at the centre of all subsequent infections), and one week later, another lab person infected with a different strain also goes to the market?

    Your gut would also therefore have a pretty good idea of the species of that intermediate animal, which assisted the virus in adapting to humans. Maybe you can tell us … because although plenty of people have searched, they cannot find any wild animal that has the necessary characteristics of an ACE2 receptor quite similar to humans, and also found in the right place with evidence of coronavirus infection.

    I mean, there’s been heaps of papers written on this, and still no plausible candidate for the intermediate animal … you could of course read Daszak’s gran applications where he mentions one particular animal, but I don’t want to give this away too easily.

  21. Shy Ted says:

    Ah, yes, the virus that still hasn’t been isolated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *