I must be alone in being perfectly happy to eat unusual parts of an animals anatomy minced up, so long as they taste nice. It’s less wasteful and offal done well can be delicious.
"the absence of evidence for a lab leak, and in the presence of evidence for the market as the source" is mere fantasy. To believe it you have to believe that circumstantial evidence is conclusive in favour of the market and inadmissible in favour of the lab, and to ignore the huge debate about whether the furin cleavage site is likely to have arisen in nature.
The evidence for the market is not circumstantial. The early cases were clustered around the market. Environmental analyses found the virus in the market. That there were two initial strains of SARS-COV-2 is consistent with a reservoir of infected animals in the market.
It is, if course, entirely possible for the wet market to be both the focal point, and it to have been a lab leak.
That., of course, it almost certainly what happened. Leaked in the lab - the CDC more likely than the WIV - simply because of proximity - 300 metres away. Infected but pre-symptomatic lab worker went from the CDC to the market to buy a chicken. Bingo. Superspreader event, clustered around the market
It's not obvious to me.
Wild -> lab -> market is plausible and you assert that the wild -> lab bit was happening (and I have no reason to disbelieve this) but the lab -> market bit still requires some lapses that are fairly rare and the timing has to be just right (they do happen, it is certainly possible)
Wild -> market is also plausible and while you assert that wild -> animal in market is unlikely (and again I have no reason to disbelieve) there's also potential for a chain of transmission through animals (or containers, surfaces, air) to market or even indeed a person infected elsewhere (not from lab, closer to large populations of bats) taking it to the market.
I don't see a strong reason to favour one of those over the other, on the available evidence.
If the outbreak had happened in any other city in China, then a purely zoonotic origin would be the most likely scenario. That it happened in the same city where bat diseases were being actively studied skews the probabilities the other way around.
Most large Chinese cities have labs studying coronaviruses. If you're worried about zoonotic infections in China, you're looking at bat diseases. So, if the outbreak had happened in any other city in China, there's a high chance there would have been a similar lab.
This doesn't seem to be true. The number of BSL-4 labs in China is very small.
And a lab leak can come from a BSL-3 lab. After all, WCDC is not BSL-4 lab, and that's the one Leon is most animated about. If it was artificially manipulated, then the odds change. If it was a natural sample leaked (which is where the focus now lies), then it's any BSL-3 lab or higher.
(Edited - BSL-3)
The CDC was, I believe, operating at BSL 2
That's why Jeremy Farrar's first reaction, on hearing about Covid, was that the lab work in China was "like the Wild West". He also believed it probably came from the lab
Yet weirdly enough about six minutes after writing that email he signed a letter to the Lancet calling "lab leak" a baseless conspiracy theory
Funny, huh
Proof that some of this terrifying bat research was done at BSL2 level (I reckon this is the Wuhan CDC they are talking about)
"In EHA-led work conducted in Wuhan, scientists infected humanized mice with engineered novel bat coronaviruses in a BSL-3 facility, according to grant documents EHA submitted to the NIH. Some collection and engineering of bat coronaviruses were done in a BSL-2, with less stringent protocols and containment, according to multiple sources including a paper in the Journal of Virology ."
I always find it's good to look at the home page of any linked website I'm not familiar with. This one looks... interesting.
It has header sections including "Bill Gates", "Pesticides" and "ultra-processed foods"
Which *really* set my spider-senses tingling.
Fuck, yeah, why are they worried abour "Pesticides" and "Ultra-processed foods"???
What a bunch of cranks
You are a dangerous fool. Your sort of sh*t is exactly how people get dragged into cults and misinformation black holes.
And how does "Bill Gates" fit into your thinking?
No idea. Anyway I've just given you THE TIMES and Jeremy Farrar as an alternative source for the exact same information. So you can put away your angry little pecker of outrage
Exactly. You don't think. You are almost uniquely incapable of thought. Thought, to you, is just which sad girl will accept the least money for you to wait hours for the blue pills to take effect. Your brain is the nearest humanity has found to a vacuum. Scientists are examining your skull to see how something so thin can withstand a 1atm pressure difference.
Why am I reacting this way? You're going through the lableak hypothesis because it's dramatic. Because lots of people died, and you think blaming the Chinese is cool.
RFK Jr is involved with that website, and if you cared one jot for people, then he would be one person you would run a mile from. You would spit in his face. You would throw rotten tomatoes at him in the stocks. RFK Jr was one of the key people spreading MMR disinformation, hence harming efforts to stop the spread of those diseases, and harming vaccination as a whole.
*If* you had a conscience, you would eat pizzas with pineapple for the next week to make amends.
But you don't have a conscience.
The merits of most sorts of theory are pretty much independent of the morals of the people adhering to it. Hitler was probably a convinced heliocentric.
Industrial accidents with dire consequences are commonplace and not really that exciting, I would not have thought. Bhopal - the Movie may exist, but it'll be a downbeat documentary.
And most importantly, lab leak is the least Chinese-blamey game in town by a country mile. US Big Science was balls deep in the gain of function nonsense, whereas wet markets is 100% the inscrutable oriental.
Three points for Godwinning yourself. One point for missing the point. A zillion points for getting blame-the-US in the conversation.
Do you have kids? Did they get the MMR jab?
*Of course* lab leak is Chinese-blamey game - especially as it often leads onto the designed-virus stuff.
You don't understand what "Godwin" means. It is widely understood and easily googled. Have a go.
What it doesn't mean, is using someone universally recognised as very evil, as an example of someone very evil. I can't see the problem with that, so please elucidate?
You don't seem to understand anything about any of this. Gain of function research is a recognised, mainstream, practice. You seem to think it is a sort of 4chan fantasy, or so I deduce from "designed-virus stuff."
And I wasn't "blaming the US." as a matter of fact I am not blaming anyone. I was saying IF someone else adheres to the lab leak theory THEN that other person holds the less anti-Chinese of the two possible views. It is hard to see how to conduct a rational conversation with someone who gets from there, to where you are.
And, politely, my childrens' medical records are off limits.
"You don't seem to understand anything about any of this." Well, I'd argue that's an indication of your lack of perception.
"And, politely, my childrens' medical records are off limits"
And that's fair enough. But if you didn't give your kids the MMR vaccine for non-medical reasons, then you are a shit. An absolute shit who does not care for his kids. But as you do care for your kids, I'd assume that you gave them the MMR jab,
And as that's the case, why trust JFK on anything?
I don't "trust JFK" on this because he is dead, and if you mean "RFK jr" I hadn't heard of him before today. From what I have seen, he was quoted purely as relaying academically reliable sources. I won't trigger you again by referring to hitler, but if Pol Pot wrote a paper referring to Darwin on the OOS, how badly damaging would that be to the theory of ebns?
as to the link: congrats! you have googled, read and completely misunderstood probably the simplest article anywhere in wp. Well done.
You're on a political website - this website - and you haven't heard of JFK Jr? The guy who threw his hat into the ring for President a while back?
"From what I have seen, he was quoted purely as relaying academically reliable sources."
Please give examples.
This is just hopeless. he is RFK JR not JFK JR and you keep repeating the mistake. It's exactly because I have a passing interest in politics that I don't think that one Kennedy is just like another.
The example is you, less than two hours ago, dismissing a well-sourced page on the grounds that "RFK jr is involved in that site."
JFK jr. FFS. WTF. Bring back the button.
I am typing on a mobile with my fat fingers. You know *exactly* who I mean.
And yes, that website is obviously full of conspiracy shite. And you call it 'well sourced'.
The fish finger cathexis in this discussion is really something. It must be part of the come down from Saturday's hysteria.
What happened on Saturday?
We experienced a very breathless immersion in the Everything on Twitter is True school of conflict analysis with updates from FR24 every 90 seconds. It was like the medieval dancing plague.
"Sen. Rubio’s extraordinary comments set the tone for remarkable legislation that ends funding for illegal UAP programs and sets strict deadlines for whistleblowers.
Like the current (and a former) IC IG, key senators find Grusch’s stunning claims credible."
Cue bafflement and silence from most of the media. UFO's, culturally, are understand to be for nutters.
Because there is zero evidence. Nothing, Nada. Just the usual round of grifters.
I personally doubt that very much. These people have to give evidence on oath, and they're very senior military and intelligence people. And then there are also all the recent changes in legislation the Hill article mentions, which would tend to support the idea that the state apparatus is trying to accommodate a whole series of credible recent whistleblowers on the topic.
So I think the only two possibilities are very deliberate large-scale misinformation, or that some of the kind of things that are considered beyond the pale by so many people, are right.
Grusch himself, for example, has seen precisely nothing himself. His testimony is entirely what he claims others have told him. Evidence is lacking here. I cannot believe that (a) there are multiple UFO crashes (b) these have been recovered in secret (c) no one, repeat no one, has ever revealed this huge secret, beyond the few rogue whistleblowing grifters such as Luis Elizondo and all the rest.
Like it or not, there is huge money to be made telling tall stories of government secrets. You can watch TV shows 24 hours a day on this stuff.
Most UAP sighting exist in the Low information zone. When better resolution comes along, so does identification.
The idea that people would lie on oath being strange, is In itself reacher strange. Happens every day.
"A striking still-life fresco resembling a pizza has been found among the ruins of ancient Pompeii... and includes one item that looks suspiciously like a pineapple."
Did you bother to even read that article before you posted it?
"Fish fingers are still a good way to get the wary to eat fish. After Birds Eye developed fish fingers, it created the tagline “no bones, no waste, no smell, no fuss” and that still holds. So what else is in there? Nothing too odd, it seems."
Which part of 65% fish did you fail to understand?
from the article
"There’s not a lot of fish in fingers compared to a full-size fillet, but they are an easy way to have fish. The only question for Captain Birds Eye now is whether to fry or grill them."
Duh. Because a fair proportion of it is batter! I'm not here to defend fish fingers, which are mundane food at best, but your staunch opposition to them seems... a little weird.
"A striking still-life fresco resembling a pizza has been found among the ruins of ancient Pompeii... and includes one item that looks suspiciously like a pineapple."
Did you bother to even read that article before you posted it?
"Fish fingers are still a good way to get the wary to eat fish. After Birds Eye developed fish fingers, it created the tagline “no bones, no waste, no smell, no fuss” and that still holds. So what else is in there? Nothing too odd, it seems."
Which part of 65% fish did you fail to understand?
from the article
"There’s not a lot of fish in fingers compared to a full-size fillet, but they are an easy way to have fish. The only question for Captain Birds Eye now is whether to fry or grill them."
Where does it say less than 65% fish?
Edit: I'd like to apologise Pagan. It may not say anything about 65% in the article but I've just checked the Waitrose website for Bird's Eye Cod fish fingers...
Birds eye it says "Birds Eye’s box of 18 fish fingers uses just 58 per cent fish but keep reading the ingredients "
and here "Dunnes’ Alaskan Pollock fish fingers have 65 per cent fish fillet"
Yes, they have a coating, that's not exactly a secret.
The coating is thin and forms much less than 20% of a fishfinger. Sorry processed food is basically crap and even 58% cod is probably a large portion of stuff you wouldnt expect in a fillet of cod just like most beefburgers will contain lips, testicles etc.
Which of the ingredients is it you are objecting to?
I am saying the definition of fish is not one most would willingly eat....just like the definition of beef is wide in beefburgers which certainly arent minced steak for example but contain a lot of minced parts that you couldn't persuade people to buy
So when they say it is 100% fillet you are convinced they are lying? Rather than being concerned about the fish %?
I trust food companies not to lie rather less than I trust Liz truss to be competent frankly, you want to trust them go right ahead
Birds Eye chilli con carne had horsemeat in it instead of beef a decade or so ago, so sure these things happen and it would be foolish to trust them 100%. But equally it is kind of weird to be so convinced that they are particularly lying about fish finger ingredients rather than elsewhere in their range, probably occassionally and sporadically as things go wrong.
I dont buy processed food full stop
Being against processed food in general makes a lot more sense than being particularly against fish fingers.
But there are a lot of food processes, like cooking, curing, soaking, lacto-fermentation etc. that have come about over centuries to make food more digestible and nourishing. You can't chuck the whole lot out by having universal rule. I am obviously not including fish fingers in the 'improved by processing' category.
There is a difference however between doing it at home yourself and accepting a companies description of something as for example Cod. Cod heads are technically cod I just prefer not to eat them
I’ve heard a good rule of thumb is to be sceptical of anything with more than four ingredients.
"A striking still-life fresco resembling a pizza has been found among the ruins of ancient Pompeii... and includes one item that looks suspiciously like a pineapple."
Did you bother to even read that article before you posted it?
"Fish fingers are still a good way to get the wary to eat fish. After Birds Eye developed fish fingers, it created the tagline “no bones, no waste, no smell, no fuss” and that still holds. So what else is in there? Nothing too odd, it seems."
Which part of 65% fish did you fail to understand?
from the article
"There’s not a lot of fish in fingers compared to a full-size fillet, but they are an easy way to have fish. The only question for Captain Birds Eye now is whether to fry or grill them."
Where does it say less than 65% fish?
Edit: I'd like to apologise Pagan. It may not say anything about 65% in the article but I've just checked the Waitrose website for Bird's Eye Cod fish fingers...
The fish finger cathexis in this discussion is really something. It must be part of the come down from Saturday's hysteria.
What happened on Saturday?
We experienced a very breathless immersion in the Everything on Twitter is True school of conflict analysis with updates from FR24 every 90 seconds. It was like the medieval dancing plague.
Fortunately I spent most of the weekend relaxing in a hit tub (at times I felt like the captain of the e Golgafrinchan B Ark), and I only read the hilarity. But whatever happens, it wasn't, and isn't, positive for Russia.
"Sen. Rubio’s extraordinary comments set the tone for remarkable legislation that ends funding for illegal UAP programs and sets strict deadlines for whistleblowers.
Like the current (and a former) IC IG, key senators find Grusch’s stunning claims credible."
Cue bafflement and silence from most of the media. UFO's, culturally, are understand to be for nutters.
Because there is zero evidence. Nothing, Nada. Just the usual round of grifters.
I personally doubt that very much. These people have to give evidence on oath, and they're very senior military and intelligence people. And then there are also all the recent changes in legislation the Hill article mentions, which would tend to support the idea that the state apparatus is trying to accommodate a whole series of credible recent whistleblowers on the topic.
So I think the only two possibilities are very deliberate large-scale misinformation, or that some of the kind of things that are considered beyond the pale by so many people, are right.
Grusch himself, for example, has seen precisely nothing himself. His testimony is entirely what he claims others have told him. Evidence is lacking here. I cannot believe that (a) there are multiple UFO crashes (b) these have been recovered in secret (c) no one, repeat no one, has ever revealed this huge secret, beyond the few rogue whistleblowing grifters such as Luis Elizondo and all the rest.
Like it or not, there is huge money to be made telling tall stories of government secrets. You can watch TV shows 24 hours a day on this stuff.
Most UAP sighting exist in the Low information zone. When better resolution comes along, so does identification.
The idea that people would lie on oath being strange, is In itself reacher strange. Happens every day.
If what the Congressmen are saying is right, some of the information is already there.
We need to wait and see, but there's certainly more grounds for media coverage than there's been so far.
Somerton and Frome will be a LD gain I think. Uxbridge I think could be a Tory hold due to a more local Tory candidate who is a Hillingdon councillor than the Camden councillor Labour candidate and the high Hindu vote.
Selby could go either way, narrow Tory hold or narrow Labour gain
Really – the Tories are available at 10/1 to hold the seat, also presume you'll be stacking your wads on that?
FWIW I'm told that there are literally hundreds of Labour helpers on the ground in Uxbridge. Not hearing that about Somerton and Frome, and suspect that the unofficial, unspoken different focus of L and LD is happening again.
FWIW, I have been asked to go and help in Somerton & Frome and Mid Beds, but not the other two. That is where the Lib Dem organisation is strongest. From a party political point of view, logic dictates that Labour ought to be concentrating on Uxbridge. Especially since our Tory Mole informs us that all the Hindus there are voting Conservative.
Comments
And yes, that website is obviously full of conspiracy shite. And you call it 'well sourced'.
Like it or not, there is huge money to be made telling tall stories of government secrets. You can watch TV shows 24 hours a day on this stuff.
Most UAP sighting exist in the Low information zone. When better resolution comes along, so does identification.
The idea that people would lie on oath being strange, is In itself reacher strange. Happens every day.
Where else do you get posts on fishfingers and tidal power dovetailed together in a single thread?
We need to wait and see, but there's certainly more grounds for media coverage than there's been so far.