1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • The Origins of Covid Investigation

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 20 18:46:42 2023
    scuttled by WHO.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature has
    learned.

    I wonder how Stephen will excuse China's lack of cooperation.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Feb 21 10:02:58 2023
    On 2/20/23 8:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
    scuttled by WHO.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature has
    learned.

    I wonder how Stephen will excuse China's lack of cooperation.

    I don't. It's been a major problem from the beginning, with valuable
    info lost when the markets were disinfected before investigations could
    be made.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 21 09:20:18 2023
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:03:01 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 8:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
    scuttled by WHO.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature
    has learned.

    I wonder how Stephen will excuse China's lack of cooperation.
    I don't. It's been a major problem from the beginning, with valuable
    info lost when the markets were disinfected before investigations could
    be made.

    Then it's settled. The lab leaked it.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Feb 21 12:46:44 2023
    On 2/21/23 11:20 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:03:01 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 8:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
    scuttled by WHO.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature
    has learned.

    I wonder how Stephen will excuse China's lack of cooperation.
    I don't. It's been a major problem from the beginning, with valuable
    info lost when the markets were disinfected before investigations could
    be made.

    Then it's settled. The lab leaked it.

    No. There's proof of market spread and no proof of lab leak.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 22 13:27:44 2023
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:20 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:03:01 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 8:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
    scuttled by WHO.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature
    has learned.

    I wonder how Stephen will excuse China's lack of cooperation.
    I don't. It's been a major problem from the beginning, with valuable
    info lost when the markets were disinfected before investigations could >> be made.

    Then it's settled. The lab leaked it.
    No. There's proof of market spread and no proof of lab leak.

    It's an open question that needs to be investigated further.
    This is the conclusion of a BBC report.
    I assume that in the interest of truth, and you being the
    open minded guy we all know you are, that you have no objections to further study

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Wed Feb 22 16:41:15 2023
    On 2/22/23 3:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:20 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:03:01 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 8:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
    scuttled by WHO.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature
    has learned.

    I wonder how Stephen will excuse China's lack of cooperation.
    I don't. It's been a major problem from the beginning, with valuable
    info lost when the markets were disinfected before investigations could >>>> be made.

    Then it's settled. The lab leaked it.
    No. There's proof of market spread and no proof of lab leak.

    It's an open question that needs to be investigated further.
    This is the conclusion of a BBC report.
    I assume that in the interest of truth, and you being the
    open minded guy we all know you are, that you have no objections to further study

    New study is welcome. The BBC report, whatever that is, is journalism,
    not science. I assume it's the reporting on the US intelligence
    community from summer 2021, which is very much out of date.

    I consistently accepted the possibility of lab leak origin due to lack
    of evidence to the contrary, but there is now evidence that links the
    outbreak to the market: "the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred through
    the live wildlife trade in China and [we] show that the Huanan market
    was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic."

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

    Abstract

    Understanding how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
    (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in 2019 is critical to preventing future zoonotic outbreaks before they become the next pandemic. The Huanan Seafood
    Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, was identified as a likely source of
    cases in early reports, but later this conclusion became controversial.
    We show here that the earliest known COVID-19 cases from December 2019, including those without reported direct links, were geographically
    centered on this market. We report that live SARS-CoV-2–susceptible
    mammals were sold at the market in late 2019 and that within the market, SARS-CoV-2–positive environmental samples were spatially associated with vendors selling live mammals. Although there is insufficient evidence to
    define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our
    analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred through the
    live wildlife trade in China and show that the Huanan market was the
    epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    End quote.

    More:

    https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/scientist-now-believes-covid-started-wuhans-wet-market-heres-why

    During the pandemic [Worobey] says he’s been trying to “poke holes” in the natural origins theory by asking if the apparent link of early
    covid-19 cases to Huanan is real or a mirage.

    That’s why Worobey decided to take up this question of whether so-called “ascertainment bias” had crept in when clinicians in Wuhan were trying
    to understand the viral outbreak.

    From the patchy, fragmented information he could get, Worobey traced
    how the first 20 covid-19 patients in three hospitals in Wuhan were
    diagnosed (a total of 27 cases were deemed suspicious by December 30).
    He found that the clinicians identified cases based on the disease’s
    clinical manifestation, especially features of their CT scans of the
    lungs, regardless of their prior exposure at Huanan. It turned out that
    nine of them were workers at the market, while one patient who had no
    market exposure had friends who worked there and had visited his home.

    This had all happened before public health officials in Wuhan turned
    their attention to Huanan, and therefore couldn’t have skewed the
    diagnosis, the study concludes: the market was indeed central to the
    earliest cases, not a result of doctors seeing more SARS-CoV-2 in the
    places they spent more time looking.

    End quote.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 22 17:02:46 2023
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:41:17 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 3:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:20 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:03:01 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 8:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
    scuttled by WHO.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China,
    Nature has learned.

    I wonder how Stephen will excuse China's lack of cooperation.
    I don't. It's been a major problem from the beginning, with valuable >>>> info lost when the markets were disinfected before investigations could >>>> be made.

    Then it's settled. The lab leaked it.
    No. There's proof of market spread and no proof of lab leak.

    It's an open question that needs to be investigated further.
    This is the conclusion of a BBC report.
    I assume that in the interest of truth, and you being the
    open minded guy we all know you are, that you have no objections to further study
    New study is welcome. The BBC report, whatever that is, is journalism,
    not science. I assume it's the reporting on the US intelligence
    community from summer 2021, which is very much out of date.

    I consistently accepted the possibility of lab leak origin due to lack
    of evidence to the contrary, but there is now evidence that links the outbreak to the market: "the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred through
    the live wildlife trade in China and [we] show that the Huanan market
    was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic."

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

    Abstract

    Understanding how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in 2019 is critical to preventing future zoonotic outbreaks before they become the next pandemic. The Huanan Seafood
    Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, was identified as a likely source of
    cases in early reports, but later this conclusion became controversial.
    We show here that the earliest known COVID-19 cases from December 2019, including those without reported direct links, were geographically
    centered on this market. We report that live SARS-CoV-2–susceptible mammals were sold at the market in late 2019 and that within the market, SARS-CoV-2–positive environmental samples were spatially associated with vendors selling live mammals. Although there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our
    analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred through the
    live wildlife trade in China and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    End quote.

    More:

    https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/scientist-now-believes-covid-started-wuhans-wet-market-heres-why

    During the pandemic [Worobey] says he’s been trying to “poke holes” in the natural origins theory by asking if the apparent link of early
    covid-19 cases to Huanan is real or a mirage.

    That’s why Worobey decided to take up this question of whether so-called “ascertainment bias” had crept in when clinicians in Wuhan were trying to understand the viral outbreak.

    From the patchy, fragmented information he could get, Worobey traced
    how the first 20 covid-19 patients in three hospitals in Wuhan were diagnosed (a total of 27 cases were deemed suspicious by December 30).
    He found that the clinicians identified cases based on the disease’s clinical manifestation, especially features of their CT scans of the
    lungs, regardless of their prior exposure at Huanan. It turned out that
    nine of them were workers at the market, while one patient who had no
    market exposure had friends who worked there and had visited his home.

    This had all happened before public health officials in Wuhan turned
    their attention to Huanan, and therefore couldn’t have skewed the diagnosis, the study concludes: the market was indeed central to the earliest cases, not a result of doctors seeing more SARS-CoV-2 in the
    places they spent more time looking.

    End quote.

    Journalism reports on all types of evidence, scientific and otherwise,
    that would lead to the truth. Its like the field of intelligence gathering and analysis.
    it comes from a variety of sources.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Thu Feb 23 09:23:46 2023
    On 2/22/23 7:02 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:41:17 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 3:27 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

    It's an open question that needs to be investigated further.
    This is the conclusion of a BBC report.
    I assume that in the interest of truth, and you being the
    open minded guy we all know you are, that you have no objections to further study
    New study is welcome. The BBC report, whatever that is, is journalism,
    not science. I assume it's the reporting on the US intelligence
    community from summer 2021, which is very much out of date.

    I consistently accepted the possibility of lab leak origin due to lack
    of evidence to the contrary, but there is now evidence that links the
    outbreak to the market: "the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred through
    the live wildlife trade in China and [we] show that the Huanan market
    was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic."

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

    More:

    https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/scientist-now-believes-covid-started-wuhans-wet-market-heres-why

    Journalism reports on all types of evidence, scientific and otherwise,
    that would lead to the truth. Its like the field of intelligence gathering and analysis.
    it comes from a variety of sources.

    The important thing journalism shares with science is the citing of
    evidence, to "stand on the shoulders of giants." I just cited a
    scientific study and a journalistic feature article about the background
    of the study.

    Since the proximity to the market has been shown by stats, alternative explanations will have to have evidence beyond the true crime
    suppositions currently on offer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)