You are correct sir!

Not only did they remove all the samples from the data bases but the lab came under military control. They literally replaced half the lab and major pieces of equipment. The lab only opened in 2018 and needed new stuff by 2019.

Thankyou . Also I would like to add I wish they had separated the lab leak scenario to lab leak of natural virus and lab creation. I bet lab creation would be a very time percentage .

@@Sceince007 - Thanx. Those repetitious "posts" introduced a very salient point that they believe that they represent some sort of overarching scientific belief on the situation. They don't. This was a 20 minute google dive with nothing but peer reviewed papers.

@@AlbertMark-nb9zo Ititerally takes seconds and a quick search to find many high level officials stating completely the opposite. The sad part about these videos and misinformation that comes with it, is how they want to slam the door shut in any debate or conversation into the true origins of Covid. The truth is somehow scary to them. Even Joseph Rancellio said he hated the idea it came from a lab. *Not a good starting point when lab accidents have happened all throughout history.*

It isn't until everyone has already been infected from a pandemic, then they aren't risking a worldwide catastrophe. The guy is being completely disingenuous. At the time of these experiments being done in 2019, it was highly inappropriate.

@@GaryVoltslol really . Which end of yours did you make up this stuff in? Do you expect Dr Offit and Vincent to descend to your level of dishonesty and ignorance ? Really ? So measles with an R naught of 28 can be studied in BSL 2 and a viruses with no infectivity not ? Lol

It's not adequate. BSL2 is not adequate. Do people not comprehend that Dick Cheney asked Dr. Fauci's department(NIAID) to take over biodefense in the early 2000's? Do people not understand what the word biodefense actually means? Pretty sure Vincent does.

@@Sceince01 Measles R0 = 18 not 28.

BSL2 is *not* adequate. The guy is a bald-faced liar.

Nonsense paper by author with significant COI.

@@basilbborgnay1531 - None of which contradicts that the " peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports the zoonotic hypotheses." This paper is in the NIH library. All conflicts are recorded. They are minor. Like working on other projects. Name them if they are so "significant".

@@AlbertMark-nb9zo The unacknowledged COIs are always the important ones!

@@basilbborgnay1531 - In other words you're just making s(*^t up. Nothing new.

During winter respiratory virus season only 3 people had respiratory virus symptoms? Like virtually all workspaces in a large city during winter.

@@lesfaby8997 Sick enough to be hospitalized. That's not a normal thing. Also, afterwards Dr Shi and other CCP officials lied about it, saying that no research was sick during that time period. Ergo, coverup.

@@lesfaby8997 November is a bit early for cold and flu season and the three were hospitalized.

@@lesfaby8997 Sure it's not the strongest claim but contributes to the mass of evidence that this was a laboratory escape.

@@mikehanson9497 they were not hospitalized . In China unlike in most countries when you are sick you go hospital not to clinic . So there is a difference between staying overnight in hospital and being seen in hospital as out patient . Also start using logic . If they had Covid would not the chain start from them? Would not the agencies start contact tracing from there ?

To put this post in context this clown thinks all virologists are incorrect about every thing and he is going to write a new text book . Every single thing Gary Voltz is not just incorrect it is actually ridiculous. This clown does not even know what GOF is .

@@Sceince007 Hey, are you Chinese?

Gain of function is a term that gets misused by people trying to spread the lab leak theory. For context.

@@GaryVolts no . Just because I hate lists and take pride in debunking the absolutely Ig no rant people like yourself should mean I am Chinese ? I do not like the fact that they have had a pandemic originate in wild life where the 80 plus billion dollars wild life food trade played a part .

Rancaniello is a virologist who worked on polio for some 40 years and still teaches virology in NYC. He was never involved with gain of function experiments. He's become more publicized because of the MicroTV channel he started. He's one of many who understand the benefits of GOF. The truly dangerous experiments of GOF have to get approved first, which happened with Ralph Baric's chimeric experiments. Most GOF involve non-pathogenic pseudo chimeric viruses to test for infectability. Any genetic engineering of plants is basically GOF as is using gene therapy in cancer patients. So, you should specify what you mean by GOF and what experiments are involved. One could also say that installing an artificial knee joint is a GOF process, which before it was FDA approved was a GOF experiment.

Jesse Bloom research was clearly debunked and his error demonstrated with a proof . He did not do it in bad faith and in fact asked a completely relevant question as he did not know the answer . But a clear answer was provided to him. So of course they are not discussing it as we all know about it . Read “ A critical reexamnation of recovered sars cov 2 sequencing data” . Read the full pdf version

Every body agrees that the first few cases were missed and those cases were likely total . If those initial cases were lab people the clustering would be around where lab workers live.

Every body tuned lineage A about two to 4 weeks prior to lineage B and that it appeared about a week later . This co relates more with zoonotic as we all think earliest cases were rural . In TWIV they give an example where for HIV first known cases were in LA a continent away from where it started .

@@Sceince01 First few thousand cases missed at least. This thing was going for a long time before enough old people started dying in the hospitals for anyone to take notice.

@@GaryVolts you have no shame in making up things from your lower end do you ? First few thousand ? Really ? Are you going to publish that too along with a lot of other obvious lies you told here ? A book of absolute lies by poorly raised Gary Voltz? Let’s say your obvious lie is true ate yoh aware that goes even more in favor of zoonotic ? So now yoh know the degree you lab leakers have to sink to 😀 Also joker what is that evidence of ?

Sars cov2 is a PANSpecie virus. The Ancestor has compleatly disapear from the wild? What would the Ancestor lack OFF or may have? If the N proteín is aligned of all NCBI virus variation what do you get? (N is key because is the antígen used in the ILFtest)? Which virus would give a positive resulta also?

​@@luismatheu4226it's a manipulated enteric bat virus

The virus has residual restriction sites of being manipulated to be a reverse genetic system used to make chimeras in a lab. No reason for a natural virus to have those. Also, no reason for a natural enteric bat virus to have an FCS keyed to human lungs.

If you're that suspicious I would read the paper. Personally, I use Occam's razor, which tells me the side that 99% of actual virologists agreeing upon is more likely to be true than the side that consists of "experts" from all kinds of disparate fields who purposely use language like "direct bat-to-human transmission" in bad faith to try to trick the public.

@@luismatheu4226 the question is NOT if we know everything . The question is do we know enough ? And we do and it’s all in favor of zoonotic spill over

You're thanking a guy that's just coving his own backside.

Why are you lab leakers and antivaxers shamelessly dishonest ? Another clown Brendan here in these threads in a way very simulated to yours tried to say that authors of the proximal origin paper say in conclusion that more research is needed . His purpose was to say that lab leak is not extremely unlikely in that paper ? If you have to twist the data or present incomplete information than you already know you are wrong so why do that ? 1 : Alina Chan has had to lie . 2: does 3 % of population sound as rare as you are pretending ? The presenters here did not make any mistake . Do you mind correcting yours ?

@@Sceince007 That "paper" is an opinion paper, and not a peer-reviewed paper. Please accurately describe it.

@hewdelfewijfe "That "paper" is an opinion paper," No, it was peer reviewed by Biosafety and Health in 2019 Titled "Human-animal interactions and bat coronavirus spillover potential among rural residents in Southern China" The "paper" is what Alina cited in her article and was written by Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak. It says in the abstract "The low seroprevalence observed in this study suggests that bat coronavirus spillover is a rare event." This directly contradicts what Racaniello and Offit say. Are you saying that Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak were wrong?

@@leopardbasement2915 I was responding to "@Sceince007". Hence why my comment started with "@Sceince007". Sceince007 mentioned "proximal origins", which is just an opinion piece. I did not talk about anything you posted at all.

Apologies @hewdelfewijfe, I see you were replying to another commenter who didn't appear on my screen until a refresh, and not me. I will reply to that person directly

I do not know of any scientist who actually was able to attach evidence with the statement. If you start asking for evidence and start verifying it you will not be a victim of misinformation next time.

@@Sceince007 "Misinformation." The Chinese CDC and early cases of the virus quote - "However, there is no published genetic evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in animals prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. 45 Additionally, the genomes of early COVID-19 cases did not show genetic evidence, in the form of adaptive mutations that SARS-CoV-2 recently circulated in another animal species other than humans. 46 Moreover, the genetic similarity between the environmental samples and human viral samples supports the likelihood that the virus found at the Huanan Seafood Market was shed by infected humans, rather than by infected animals. 47" ---end quote. ---- Here is the Chinese CDC stating the same. "Gao said samples collected from animals in the market in early January did not contain traces of the coronavirus, which were only found in sewage. “At first, we assumed the seafood market might have the virus, but now the market is more like a victim,” he said. “The novel coronavirus had existed long before.” *So a rather extraordinary statement from even the Chinese that the wet market was the victim NOT the production point or origin.*

@@Sceince007 "Misinformation?" The Chinese CDC or equivalent said the same thing and how the market was likely the victim of the virus. Not the other way round. Quote - "However, there is no published genetic evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in animals prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. 45 Additionally, the genomes of early COVID-19 cases did not show genetic evidence, in the form of adaptive mutations that SARS-CoV-2 recently circulated in another animal species other than humans. 46 Moreover, the genetic similarity between the environmental samples and human viral samples supports the likelihood that the virus found at the Huanan Seafood Market was shed by infected humans, rather than by infected animals. 47" The report even goes onto state that SARS COV 2 is vastly different from previous animals or bird virus spill over events with explosion of the virus over multiple sites before jumping into humans. "Gao said samples collected from animals in the market in early January did not contain traces of the coronavirus, which were only found in sewage. “At first, we assumed the seafood market might have the virus, but now the market is more like a victim,” he said. “The novel coronavirus had existed long before " end quote.

@@Sceince007 Then you're willfully blind

@@GaryVolts I wrote TWO replies and added quotes and links to scientists and papers for him to look at. KZfaq now blocks everything. *It's actually sad how KZfaq does this and stiffles any chance of replying to this "misinformation" nonsense.*

1) Your rebuttals are just shifting the burden or proof and ignorance fallacies. You need positive proof of your claim that it was a lab leak. The reason Offit can dismiss Chan's claims is because Chan's claims are without evidence. The most damning lack of evidence is that there were no viruses being worked on that could be made into SARS CoV 2. Claims that there might've been "hidden viruses" or "hidding GOF research" are just conspiracy theory. This knocks out most your points. 2) If I were you I'd reread the findings of the US intelligence agencies. At no point do any relevant agencies claim there's substantial evidence for the lab leak hypothesis. And furthermore, the scientists that have studied the virus do not assert that it was lab or man made and can actually provide evidence of a likely chain of transmission from animal to humans. 3) You should also reread info on BSL precautions. Here is BSL 2 from the CDC: "All procedures that can cause infection from aerosols or splashes are performed within a biological safety cabinet (BSC)" If you're in a safety cabinet you wouldnt need a respirator because there's a physical barrier. BSL 3: "If you work in a lab that is designated BSL-3, the microbes there can be either indigenous or exotic, and they can cause serious or potentially lethal disease through respiratory transmission" You can see how SARS CoV-2 doesn't fit into this category.

3:34 and 3:42 because she tried to publish it in nature magazine . Because the data was on another sever and later restricted and was not any different from the one submitted for publication . Because the facts on the ground support that it’s natural , two lineages, cases concentrated market. We don’t separate events .

3:34 and 3:42 because she tried to publish it in nature magazine . Because the data was on another sever and later restricted and was not any different from the one submitted for publication . Because the facts on the ground support that it’s natural , two lineages, cases concentrated market. We don’t separate events .

Your can’t are hilarious and based on lies that you created in your poorly tasted head .

4:00 make yourself aware of diffuse project which was rejected and the actual research that was done and the differences. No there was not go f research . It dies not matter how much you lie it does not change facts.

10 years ago people were also warning of the risks of gain of research potentially starting a pandemic. That's why Obama but the ban in place.

Please do so.

Click on the show notes. It is there

www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-1121/ has a list of the in-depth TWiV episodes covering lab-leak hypothesis. www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-876/ has Worobey et al paper link.

If the link didn't post, the article title is "Opinion | Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points" printed on Jun 3, 2024.

Click on the show notes. There is a link there. 🖇️

It's insane. Think about it. A flimsy paper mask between the virus on the bench and a pandemic that would go on to kill 10s of millions of peoole.

@@brendanmay9585 so you think political reasons for putting sars cov 2 in bsl are a good reason pug reason instead of the actual scientific reasons? You have proven again and again that you lack the ability to think logically and critically .lets prove it once again . Why do you think a more infectious virus Measles is in BSL 2 and viruses like Zika on BSL 2 ?

It’s a very fact based discussions . Hard facts that have been discussed on multiple platforms and appear in peer reviewed articles in high impact review journals.

No, balance DOES NOT mean giving equal time to paranoid conspiracy theories.

@@mariaveresova8169 you think a discussion between nuts and scholars equates to a a balance?

@@Sceince007 which facts? The main argument was calling the other claims ridiculous without any backing facts.

​@@Sceince007the peer review process has been corrupted by the sheer scale of money involved and loss of life. You're expressing a very naive view of the how the world works.

Not only this but a number of flagrant safety violations there. Lab workers boiling and eating eggs used in live experiments or having sold animals from the lab to wet markets also. Many people have described the safety standards there as the "wild west" or sent back actual cables describing bad safety standards and a lack of trained technician's.

But they did not lie . Can you point out even a single lie

@@Sceince01 That BSL-2 labs are sufficient for COVID.

They are ignoring the molecular biology evidence of insertions to increase pathogenicity to humans. Probably because they are scared to go there.

@@Sceince01 Pick a start point? You ignored all the points and anomalies with the virus in the other thread. *SARS COV 2 is an anomaly with multiple features that haven't ever been found in nature. In fact the likelihood of all the anomalies adding up to be a natural virus is 1 in a billion.*

@@DavidAKZ "molecular biology evidence of insertions" Not a single one, at least none that was not observed in nature.

@@brendanmay9585 yeah but since have proven to be dishonest previously and here you provide the proof of your dishonesty yet again . Yes it’s not definitive but it sure not mean it’s likely either , it still is extra unlikely but acknowledging that would mean you had to he honest.

@@Sceince01 where have I been proven to be dishonest? I have disproven some of your claims and proven that the misspelling of science in you used name pretty accurately represents your scientific understanding.

@@Sceince01 you say yeah it's not definitive. Nice of you to agree with me and disagree with the claim in this video.

@@brendanmay9585 no I will have to be as dishonest as yourself to agree with you ? Even here you could not stop yourself from trickery and cheapness . Learn the distance between definitive and extremely unlikely. So are so ignorant that you don’t know the difference. Sorry I can’t sink to your standards even in my sleep . Why did you think I can be as dishonest as yourself or as dumb?

@@brendanmay9585 even here ? And before where you could not qualify your dumb responses where tried dishonestly to blur the boundary between extremely unlikely and definitive and where you purposefully failed to take things into account together and desperately wanted to keep them separate . When I asked you to calculate the odds you ran away because you knew you had bed. Caught lying.

There was a management shakeup when the leak was detected and they changed over to military control.

And why would you ask that question?

@@Ciachoo Was she sick? But her name was removed from their list of staff. Was she being disciplined by the Chinese Communist Party? This is a common practice by the CCP when somebody has messed up in their view. If she had allowed a GMO virus, or any dangerous virus, to escape, or they blamed her for it, they might have done this. I have never heard any explanation for her absence, so it seems possibly suspicicious. Who knows?

W if at if you had half the integrity Dr Offit had in his left little toe ? Or half the brains he has in left little toe ? Just because you are uneducated and ignorant should not mean you should calm him a liar .

Let's rip their disingenuous nonsense to shreds in this comment section then!

@@GaryVolts haven’t I done that you several times ? So do you think your entire clan is about as honest as Dr Fauci left little finger ? So how does it feel to be the dumbest guy here ?

@@Sceince007 Get lost troll

China has a communist government. They don't concern themselves with such things which is why we should not be partners with them.

Sure, I question it, but no more than I question American, Canadian and German meat handling processes. But questioning something is not proof of it.

They used the same tactics in Sverdlovsk. Blaming tainted meat and food while people were dying from inhalation anthrax. Wuhan will be the same. A supposedly "civilian" lab messing with dangerous stuff. Blaming people eating bats and wet markets to avoid the truth around Wuhan and the risky bw's research or dual use research of grave concern.

in which journal will I find this rebuttal?

@@basilbborgnay1531 - The same journal as the stoyan and chiu.

@@basilbborgnay1531 - Yawn repetition. Stoyan and Chiu don't know what they are talking about. Neither of them have any experience with the math and techniques of tracing outbreaks or spillovers. No other specialists or epidemiologists challenged Worobey's finding.

@@AlbertMark-nb9zo You really are clueless aren't you?

@@basilbborgnay1531 - I know when you really know something, you can actually argue it. You can't.

She demolished herself and targeted the dumbest portion of the population . She clearly lied and none of her 5 points is valid .

@@Sceince007 You're outnumbered dude. On an island of denial by yourself.

@@GaryVolts out numbered by liars and id.. iots? I agree . Just look at your self how incredibly stu ..pid right ? Anything you have said that is not ridiculous or a lie so far ?

Trouble is that they did for political reasons blamed a real life super hero who saved millions of lives

You called it. It's scary to think about how fragile life is, so blaming someone or something brings people comfort. I think this is why some people find comfort in religion, too.

We humans don't do well with the unknown. Too much fear

Also, sometimes people do things, and then are responsible for the consequences. I can't believe we're still doing the "Ostrich-neck emerging from ground waiting for the threat to either devour it or move along" thing over here. It came out of the fucking lab, you idiots. Bad science and corrupt scientists made this pandemic orders of magnitude worse than it would have been to let every American create and enact their own Covid guidelines, since the guidelines the government comes out with are often inadequate, often based on misassumptions and bad evidence, if not propaganda and worse yet, political affiliation, as if that should have anything to do with political parties or ideology. Seems pretty clear that everyone is agreeing that this came from a lab and you do everything to justify the belief in the zoonotic theory... Maybe because that makes you more "useful" and "relevant" whereas if the CCCP/Ecohealth Alliance were performing this "totally-not-gain-of-function" research that totally gives viruses more functions, which if performed in a lab with inadequate BSL level, then "lab leaks" cease to be freak events and become predictable releases, making doing that research at that lab a guarantee that a leak will come. With this setup, it's not a matter of if there will be a lab leak, it's a matter of when.

Fear of the truth.

lol your ignorance is of the charts . Lol . Thanks for letting us know that you cherry picked points , showed you lack common sense to understand simple things and that you were dishonest enough to ignore hard facts. 1: they killed the animals to contain the pandemic - how did it start ? 2: what do you make of the facts there were two lineages ? 3: that the genetics show clear signs of natural origin 4: why were both market related and unrelated cases clustered around market ? 5: why did a regular discover first cases? Should not a lab leak be chased by CDC officials and contact tracers ? 6: why did Alina Chan need to lie ? They were nice to her and did not bring up the point that she is not ignorant but she things her readers are .

Is it cognitive dissonance or are they being disingenuous? That's what I want to know. Ya, just amazing how much knowledge Offit claims to have on the projects of a government lab in an authoritarian country. Ralph Barick said BSL2 was crazy. You could do BSL3 now that everyone has already been exposed.

@@GaryVolts Scientists share data and collaborate very frequently. Claiming that because it's an authoritarian government then anything goes is silly and without evidence.

@@WooliteMammoth Many governments do classified secret research on viruses and do NOT share or collaborate everything.

@@WooliteMammoth "Scientists share data and collaborate very frequently" -- That's not what Fauci and other ssaid about the work being done at the Wuhan Institute.

They did not lie but thanks for letting know you are clueless.

@@Sceince007 what about the misrepresentation of the study as "definitive" when the study itself clearly says more data would be needed to test the hypothesis.

​@@Sceince007how could they claim definitive knowledge of what viruses were being worked on in a government lab of an authoritarian country? The PLA shared that facility. It's a risible claim to make.

In fact, they even had the guy on the show who explained how the government tried to obfuscate and prevent the SARS sequence from being published. Also he told about how the virus database was suddenly unnacessable.

@@brendanmay9585Are you talking about Ed Holmes who received the sequence from a Chinese colleague?

John Stewart did it best in his appearance. "The name of the lab is the Wuhan Novel Coronavirus Lab!" You'd have to be willfully blind to just think it was some kind of amazing coincidence that the virus they proposed to create, just happened to appear the next year in the same town naturally.

Going even further back in history everyone laughed at Ignaz Semmelweis when he told doctors to wash their hands. In fact, I think we have a Semmelweis reflex here. People disputing the theory without actually engaging with it.

Include Peter hortez in the motley crew to go on his show and talk about it.

He won't do it because he'd get destroyed.

Yup true for many infections . HIV? But data clearly suggests that lab leak is extremely unlikely.

Just because you say so ? They have proof . What do you have besides a degree in dumbness and dishonesty ?

​@@Sceince007you have nothing except an opinion based on unverifiable data supplied from a highly conflicted source that itself said the data was sample biased.

For making common cause with the CCP? Their arguments don't hold water.

Dr. Racaniello has had Dr. Katherine Wu and David Quammen, both of the New York Times, as guests on his excellent science podcast, This Week in Virology -- TWiV 1023: Covering science with Katherine Wu, TWiV 948: Breathless with David Quammen.

Plus Prof. Racaniello has lectured at the Columbia School of Journalism.

Katherine Wu has moved to The Atlantic. Ed Yong is there, too. David Quammen writes for the NY Times. He is convince it was an animal spillover.

@@norman_5623 point is allowing Alina lies to be published was obviously irresponsible and unethical journalism .

I think so too .

SARS1 is documented to have leaked 3 times from Chinese labs. That's even easier.

@@GaryVolts Evidence, which labs, where and when?

@@christopherrobinson7541 lmgtfy

@@christopherrobinson7541 You're going to have to look it up yourself. Nobody familiar with lab safety contests this.

@@christopherrobinson7541 There is a referenced Wikipedia article on lab leaks. It's incomplete but still worth a look: "List of laboratory biosecurity incidents".

Make ? Those are labs not factories .

Unfortunately, they manipulate animal viruses to infect human flesh among other things.

Sir do you know how labs work? They're not in there making viruses.

@@Sceince01 You should know that viruses can be genetically engineered.

@@WooliteMammoth Ever hear of genetically engineered viruses?

Worobey is wrong, Chan is right.

But the NYT does not care about renewal of research grants, moratoriums on GOF Research, and potential increased regulations, scrutiny, and oversight similar to other regulatory agencies. They have no interest in promoting either side of the debate. Research labs do have an interest.

@@gayluinstra1396 NYT is fear mongering to gain readers, their motivation is money.

@@GaryVolts I wouldn't trust Worobey as far as I could throw him after his participation in the HIV-AIDS OPV coverup.

@@hewdelfewijfe do you think someone has dirt on him so they could force him to write this fiction about covid?

It was weak and disingenuous.

Weak and disengenuous.

the most recent peer-reviewed papers cited by Chan indicate the early case data was biased towards the market (Weissman 2024). George Gao acknowledged this to the BBC last year. Recall the market cases were all lineage lineage B. The new genomes published by Lv et al (2024) indicate lineage A came first and there was a single point of emergence not multiple spillovers. So the known market cases aren't the primary cases. Jesse Bloom (2023) found a negative correlation with susceptible animals and SARS-COV-2 genetic material. Another analysis from Bloom this year showed other animal CoVS linked to animal stalls but SARS-COV-2 wasn't one of them. Therefore there is no good evidence for market origin. WHO considers all hypotheses remain on the table and are calling for data on both the animal trade and Wuhan labs to be shared.

@@BloombergisBack - "No evidence of systematic proximity ascertainment bias in early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan Reply to Weissman (2024) Florence Débarre, Michael Worobey " is just a couple of months old. The Lv paper is probably "Evolutionary trajectory of diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants at the beginning of COVID-19 outbreak"? It doesn't say anything about number of spillovers. They acknowledge Peckar and say "it remains unclear when, where, and how SARS-CoV-2 first appeared in humans prior to its initial identification in December 2019 in Wuhan". No the market cases contained BOTH. The first occurrence of lineage A was Jan 4 2020, lineage B, 4 genomes were identified on 18 January in Wuhan and 19 January in Shandong province.

lol says the drama who makes the most useless comments posts . COVID 19 originated naturally HOW ? Why not Lab created. Evidence AGAINST lab creation 1: the genetics of the virus a: the furin cleavage sites are out of frame b : if the furin cleavage sites were Lab created in lab cultures the sites separate but with this virus they don’t . c : Lab was working on certain viruses and kept trying to publish them since 2016 . Why would they hide one virus? ( most lay folks don’t understand the changes virologists make they don’t know which way they will go ) LOGISTICS-lack of near enough genetic match to use as back bone . a: they did not have a virus near enough genetic match to use as back bone . This is a 30k nucleotide virus . The nearest match was RTG13 which is 96.2% match ( meaning a difference of 1200 nucleotides ) . Impossible - with a virus this large they needed a 99.9 or at minimum 99.8% match . Reasons AGAINST lab leak of NATURAL virus 1: TWO LINEAGES a and b . there were two lineages both at the market . Lineage a older yet showed up later What are the chances virus leaked once ? What are the chances that virus leaked twice with in a week ? What then are the chances it went straight to the market -twice ? Market is not even one of the ten most busy places in Wuhan . What are the chances it leaked twice and both times went straight to the same section of market ? Most of the first 700 cases are clustered around the West side of market Market related cases and market unrelated cases were both clustered around market and market unrelated even more tightly so . ( market unrelated case clustering is even more important) Reality check If virus was lab leaked Chinese CDC would be after it trying to do contact tracing but the first cases were discovered by a regular doctor and the next few cases as well by another doctor at another hospital . GOP Drama ( sham hearing ) The emails were never published in full detail The context and exactly how the scientists changed their minds ( based on scientific evidence discussed in great detail by each of them was never brought up ).

Offit is wrong right away. We have NOT had 3 Corona pandemics recently. SARS n MERS never came near pandemic status

⁠

@@muskepticsometimes9133What

@@muskepticsometimes9133Are u a virologist

​​@@muskepticsometimes9133Not in the US, but in SARS-1 was primarily in Asia and MERS hit the Middle East. Thankfully they caught it early; but they were deadly.

Or at the very least, submit a letter to the editor.

I agree .

Actually they're quite weak. How could these 2 guys claim know what work was being done in the government lab of an authoritarian country?

@@patriciahoke4722 4 days after the Chan opinion the NYTimes published some letters on the topic including one from an internationally respected evolutionary biologist that stated: "...These accusations are very serious, yet the case made by Dr. Chan rests entirely on speculation. Critical facts are ignored, such as the presence of live wild animals involved in the emergence of SARS in the market where many of the first people known to have gotten Covid worked or shopped. In my view, proper scientific analyses, which a majority of experts agree support a natural origin, are misrepresented or inappropriately dismissed by Dr. Chan. While the origin of the pandemic is still not known with certainty, Dr. Chan has identified her culprits without any actual evidence." Florence Débarre

@@deanjohnston1614 Debarre doesn't know what a majority of experts think. The majority of the experts polled in the study she's referring to declined to answer survey. That same study cited a non-existent white paper as a control to see if the respondents would say they'd read it and a large proportion claimed they had.

How so?

Even Ralph Baric and Ian Lipkin said BSL-2 was inadequate biosecurity for this type of research. They don't even address the peer-reviewed studies Chan cited which undermine the arguments for Huanan Seafood Market origin either.

I would keep my mouth shut. It is the Killing Fields.

What about Chan's article do you think is misinformation? These guys here are gaslighting. If you send anyone to this video, you'd be giving them a bum steer.

Note that Paul misrepresented the conclusion of the study as definitive. They are not, the authors themselves say in the conclusion that more data is needed to test the hypothesis of animal spillover. Why and how is Paul so certain of something that the study authors are not and did not claim?

Unfortunately Offit skips the more recent peer-reviewed papers Chan cited. Bloom (2024) showed the market samples have a link with other animal CoVS but SARS-COV-2 isn't one of them. The market cases from December 2019 were all lineage B but Lv et al (2024) published new genomes indicating lineage A came first. So market cases are not the primary cases. WHO has also confirmed that all hypotheses remain on the table and are calling for data on both the animal trade and Wuhan labs.

Please elaborate.

@@gymjoedude he can not . He has made silly posts that show he does not have the first clue. He talked about data base proving that he has no idea what he is saying. He is also completely clueless about GO F proving which is an easy victim for those spreading misinformation. No critical thinking , no ability to look up things .

@@gymjoedude Here's my response: 3:34 How do you know that Dr Shi didn't perform any research that showed gain of function? Because she said so? Useless. 3:42 How do you know that Dr Shi didn't have the direct precursor virus? You assume that she would have uploaded the data immediately to their database - the same online database that was taken down in September 2019? 4:00 Yes. They did gain of function research on it just like they proposed doing less than two years earlier in the DEFUSE grant proposal. 4:08 You argue that the lab researcher must have gotten infected then went to the Huanan wet market without infecting anyone else. First, so what? Are you saying that lab researchers don't visit wet markets? Second, this relies on data provided by the CCP on the earliest cases of COVID in humans, and we know that the CCP manipulated the data and is hiding many of the earliest cases of COVID. Why? Maybe because it points to the Wuhan Institute. Maybe not. However, because the data has been clearly manipulated, we cannot reliably conclude that the initial outbreak was at the Huanan wet market. 4:20 This is not genuine. The zoonotic crossover hypothesis relies on an even more unlikely ad-hoc hypothesis that a bat infected a farm animal somewhere, which didn't infect any human, and traveled hundreds or thousands of miles without infecting anything else, until it arrived at the Wuhan Huanan wet market. 4:37 I've heard some dispute about whether there is two distinct lineages of SARS COVID 2. 4:55 Poisoning the well. You claim all of these things are quote "impossible", which they are clearly not. 6:02 Nonsense argument. "It's not true because it would look bad for virologists" is not a valid argument. 6:32 Nonsense argument / unfair shifting of the burden of proof. "I demand that you have overwhelming evidence to dismiss the theory that I call the default-hypothesis by sheer fiat because it might make some people look bad." This is not a court of law. Those standards do not apply. 6:56 Now you're just lying. You just claimed that all of the USA intelligence agencies declared that the Wuhan Institute didn't have a direct precursor virus, and this is not true. By contrast, all USA intelligence agencies believe that the lab leak hypothesis is at least plausible and deserves further investigation. 6:56 You're also lying again. The WHO group sent to research into the origin of COVID were not given any access to the original data, and they only had the CCP summaries to go on. 7:22 Dishonest. They didn't just "get sick". They were sick enough to be hospitalized, with at least one displaying symptoms consistent with COVID, and Dr Shi and the other CCP officials lied about it. Ergo, they were covering it up. 7:37 Again, you're relying on test results from the CCP. If the test results were positive, we know for sure that the CCP would have covered it up, and therefore the negative results reported by the CCP are worthless. 7:41 And again you're lying. You implied USA intelligence agencies confirmed that the blood samples showed it was not COVID in the 3 researchers. They did no such thing. 8:11 You just said that BSL-2 is adequate for SARS COVID 2? They don't even use respirators at BSL-2, just a face shield or a cloth mask, both of which are completely inadequate to prevent infection from SARS COVID 2. Go f yourself. And I'm done. I can't take any more of this guy's lies.

@@gymjoedude I did a long rebuttal point by point higher up in the comments.

@@hewdelfewijfe 8:41 to add to this, CDC guidelines clearly state BSL-3. German CDC defines BSL-2 sufficient ONLY for pathogens that do not cause human illness and have no or very low commnicability.

While Andersen and his colleagues initially suspected that the virus could have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, after additional analyses and an accumulation of this scientific evidence, Andersen and his co-authors concluded that the hypothesis was unfounded. In a 2022 paper, Andersen concluded that animals sold in a market in Wuhan, China, were most likely to be the source of the virus. Christensen, Jen CNN (July 27, 2022). "Covid-19 origins: New studies agree that animals sold at Wuhan market are most likely what started pandemic" .

So Kristian in his own words moved on from that “ ignorance “ but I guess it’s important to remain “ ignorant “. Kristian learned from Marian Koopman and Robert Garry and now there are so much in it . Why it’s so important for you to remain “ ignorant “ ?

Normally BSL2. Either non-infectious or replication defective viruses can be handled in BSL2.

@@matthewflores8439 That doesn't describe SARS-Cov-2.

@@matthewflores8439 so why do the CDC guidelines state BSL-3 for SARS-COV-2 if BSL 2 is sufficient?

@@brendanmay9585 Great question - traditionally BSL3 viruses (such as HIV, Influenza, or SARS-CoV-2) can be classified down to BSL2 if they are replication defective or made un-infectious. This can be done by, for example, removing coding sequences for proteins necessary for viral entry or replication. This is why many researchers can study infectious human viruses like the ones listed above. It removes the risk for infection and spread and allows studies on many aspects of the virus at a lower biosafety level.

@@matthewflores8439thsnks. That means BSL 3 is recommended for the virus in the proposal were a broad mix and Baric made notes in the proposal that bsl-3 would be preferred.

@@brendanmay9585 which one of Alana Chan’s not ridiculous ?

@@Sceince01 just calling an argument ridiculous is not scientifically disproving it. Specifically there is no contradiction between a crossover at then a lab employee going to the market. People, also lab employees go to a market all the time. Even if we accept that the market is the epicenter of the wave, that is not definitive evidence of how it got to the market. PS - I am not problab leak, I am against the claim that we know, because we just don't.

@@brendanmay9585 Kim I have tried to educate you that there is difference between definitive and extremely unlikely to have purposefully failed to grasp that which I don’t think is due to extreme dumbness big die to your dishonesty . Evidence ? I asked about it in our several previous conversations and you failed miserably at it and gets you pretending it’s a new conversation? Really that low ? Why do I have to ask these questions repeatedly ? Unthinking have asked at least 19 times before right ? So you think a virus can leak twice and each time go straight to market ? Why do you think that none of the first 759 cases had lab workers or chief relatives among them ? A lab person goes to market infects several and then never infects people where he lives ? How desperate are you ? Why did the agency not go contact tracing ? Lab leak would be so apparent ? Why did it take regular doctor to find earliest cases ? Why are both market related and non market related cases linked to west side of the market ?

@@brendanmay9585 not Dave in medically proving it ? Clown listen to this video and the earlier 5 pints video where each of her claim is discussed . So are you purposefully being this ignorant ? Do you want me to Bertie that I am arguing with the dumbest clown or did you actually not understand any of the videos ? Do you want me to go over each one of her points ?

@@brendanmay9585 The question is not if we know everything. The question is do we have “ enough “ data to reasonable conclusion - of-course we do. 1: what’s missing ? The data on Lu examines as they were killed . 2: what we have A: earliest cases clustered around market both market related and unrelated B: the genome of the virus C: Data what they were working on and that they did big have any virus that was close . If they had why would. They try to publish all big that ? D: intelligence reports that the jab did not have the virus until after the start of pandemic E: intelligence report that the cases did not have vivid F: Repurt that none of the bats had cov virus . Confirmed by UN team G: report that none of the lab workers had cov - confirmed by Marian Coopman team and supported by the facts on ground ie tegyiar doc picked up earliest cases , agencies were not contact tracing and did not pick up earliest cases . H: lab workers relatives not infected . I : lineage A and B J: epigenetic data from west side of market

Why debate a proven liar ?

@@eddymoretti3742 he would lose, and lose badly

@@GaryVolts it didn’t leak from the WIV

@@eddymoretti3742because the dishonest and the uneducated like toddlers say so while ignoring evidence ?

@@GaryVoltssays he would loose who has not posted anything but lies ?

No errors es of coffins and its highly regarded paper. Why do you lie so much ? Also if you could prove the errors . Lido you think you are lab leaker because you are very low on morals and you ate very dumb?

You should check the erratum by Pekar and finally it still did not make any difference in the conclusion of two jump .

@@Sceince01 The erratum is misleading. The conclusions are no longer sustainable. There are even more errors they are yet to address.

@@basilbborgnay1531 haha ok let’s say the erratum is misleading . Prove it ? If you can not do you agree we can call you liar ?

- Name the paper. Name the contributing authors. The date. Because the "paper" you keep referencing seems to be this nebulous piece of fiction that exists in ur head cause the ONLY rebuttal of Pekar is the paper he's the lead in. And yet you seem to be oblivious using the same ambiguous reference in another thing you reference as Pekar in something completely else that has no mathematical rebuttal of Pekars work in it.

". . .like trying to teach calculus to a dog." Love that analogy! And so true. The vast majority have not the amount of education to even begin to conceive how much they don't know.

Oh, bull crap. Anyone with common sense can see it was the freaking lab there. Thats why most people say so.

@@GaryVolts Well, as I said, hardly anyone has the knowledge and experience of the people who have done spill-over analysis papers. Your comment proves my point.

@@GaryVolts - Welcome canine. Still doesn't make understand or show ANY understanding of the subject. Which is the point of the OP.

@@peterginsburg2465no you are not aware of how huge a scholar Gary Voltz is . Y if you can read all his posts under this video . He is going to write new text books on virology and price that every thing written so far was incorrect and written by incompetent experts .

Yet so disingenuous and wrong.

@@GaryVolts I'm sorry you're so uninformed.

@@WillNewcomb I've got more information about the pandemic in my pinky finger than you have in your whole body. What do I have wrong?

Back with more bs ? By the Chinese ? They already knew it was not the lab and it was the market and that’s what they were trying to cover up . You still have not learned after being proven wrong every single time ? Did you watch the three or so episodes I advised you to watch so you will not look so silly ?

Also Watch TWIV , Covid origins from nature in 5 key points Can you tell us why did Alina Chan lie ? Can you tell us why every person who is advocating for lab as cause has to resort to lying ?

@@Sceince007 ok so they knew It was the wet market so they closed the lab to cover up the met market......now I understand - all wet markets are now closed in china I Guess?

@@Sceince007 can you hear what you are saying "they were trying to cover Up" so again the DB was taken down because they had to cover up the wet market. 007 yep too right😷😂

" Question: why was there no investigation made at the WU lab?" -- Because the CCP refused to allow it. They refused any outside people access to the lab. They also basically rebuilt the entire lab circa January 2020. For example, we have a copy of a CCP article that was asking for private contractors to submit bids to renovate the entire HVAC system at the Wuhan Institute. For a 3 year old building.

You're going to have to point out an inaccuracy instead of trying to impugn her motives.

In fact she was born in Canada to parents from Singapore.

She is a Molecular Biologist.

You should know that Vincent was one of the leading proponents of gain of function research before the pandemic. He's hardly independent.

Gain of function research is an important tool to understand viruses. It’s used all the time. I fail to see your point.

@@tomasbengtsson5157 We're talking about the kind of gain of function research that intentionally enhances viruses to make them more contagious or pathogenic in human beings. Everyone knows that. He was one of the top people fighting to continue this dangerous practice even though he was warned by other scientists that a pandemic could result. Now that we got one, he's trying to cover himself.

SARS1 leaked from Chinese labs 3 times. But never a movie made about that. The 1995 movie called Outbreak talked about a natural event.

@@willaherold9027 Sverdlovsk. Weaponized antbrax leaked from a "civilian lab" and was covered up for 10 years. SARS, Anthrax, foot and mouth, Marburg. All have leaked or nearly leaked from labs. *TRUTH and reality is often stranger than fiction. Ask Nikolai Ustinov or find his death notes.*

Why would it? There arguments were risible.

One would hope that scientists would argue using science instead of emotional appeals and broad dismissive claims without any supporting evidence.

Para phrasing Jonathan Swift. You can not convince people with logic who didn’t use logic to form their opinions in the first place. Even if they find the original host, there will still be a large number of people who won’t believe it. We still have flat earthers 🙄

@@tomasbengtsson5157 Don't compare "flat earthers" with a highly plausible and likely scenario. It becomes disingenuous. Humans aren't perfect because they enter a lab environment and workers have accidents or get bitten by animals routinely. Ralph Barick had a team member bitten by an infected mouse and also historically we have seen many accidents and viruses leak from labs.

Your preference for personal attacks over arguing the science shows clearly that you are a troll.

@@brendanmay9585 reason with you ? What reason have you put forth so far ? When you have clearly displayed a toddler level intellect and have do e big cry about a HARD FACT and have insisted that I should ignore all the evidence and not call lab leak extremely unlikely and zoonotic very likely . Why should I descend to your level of dishonesty and stu pidity and ignore facts ? Even up there in OP I have posted a reason . Read it may be a 20 times and even with toddler intersect you may find a reason. Next post will be my question that I have asked you over 10 times prove me wrong 😀

@@Sceince007 incessant personal attacks with no argument

@@brendanmay9585 so still can figure it out ? ok clown since I have posted it to you over 10 times only for you to run away and insist like a toddler . Lets post it one more time 1: which virus was used for creation ? 2: why were they publishing the work they were doing? 3: what would make one virus different for them to not publish and if they were working how would they know that the changes cause infection. If do cause infection in what species? Since they could not foretell they would not know which virus to hide . See next post for more

@@brendanmay9585 4: why were mutations out of frame in sars 2 virus genome , a tell tale sign it was not a virologist who created it Now that we have that out of way let’s say these very unlikely things did happen 5: why did lab worker go straight to stall where zoonosis was supposed to occur , was photographed years back for that reason . 6: why did lab worker not infect relatives. Neighbors , coworkers? 7: why did lab worker not go and infect people another places the rest if the days in infectivity period ? 8: why did UN report mention no lab workers were infected ? Which is inline with facts on ground z More to follow .