U.S. Officials Still Not Ruling Out Lab Accident As Covid Origin, Officials Say | NBC Nightly News

1. This did not age well

2. Listen, China spun the story from DAY ONE. All that initial news from the Wuhan seafood market was “theater.” That’s how media works in China. News outlets can’t just investigate and report news like in the US. In China, news stories come directly from the top (stories are written daily by the communist party, then sent to Chinese media outlets, and they run [they MUST] those party approved stories). There’s no debate in China. In fact, it is illegal in China to report any other news story except for the party approved narrative (and this goes for any and social media in China too). The USA needs to stop this Biden, Trump, Fox News, CNN, Fauci bickering – it’s futile, it’s dividing us and it’s exactly what China wants us to do. The culprit here, the enemy so-to-speak is The CCP the its oppressive control it has over ALL information within China🇨🇳

3. the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Dr. Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”
   Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. In their laboratories they routinely created viruses more dangerous than those that exist in nature. They argued they could do so safely, and that by getting ahead of nature they could predict and prevent natural “spillovers,” the cross-over of viruses from an animal host to people.
   If SARS2 had indeed escaped from such a laboratory experiment, a savage blowback could be expected, and the storm of public indignation would affect virologists everywhere, not just in China. “It would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom,” an MIT Technology Review editor, Antonio Regalado, said in March 2020.
   A second statement which had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on March 17, 2020 in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were a group of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter.

   Unfortunately this was another case of poor science, in the sense defined above. True, some older methods of cutting and pasting viral genomes retain tell-tale signs of manipulation. But newer methods, called “no-see-um” or “seamless” approaches, leave no defining marks. Nor do other methods for manipulating viruses such as serial passage, the repeated transfer of viruses from one culture of cells to another. If a virus has been manipulated, whether with a seamless method or by serial passage, there is no way of knowing that this is the case. Dr. Andersen and his colleagues were assuring their readers of something they could not know.
   The discussion part of their letter begins, “It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus”. But wait, didn’t the lead say the virus had clearly not been manipulated? The authors’ degree of certainty seemed to slip several notches when it came to laying out their reasoning.
   The reason for the slippage is clear once the technical language has been penetrated. The two reasons the authors give for supposing manipulation to be improbable are decidedly inconclusive.
   First, they say that the spike protein of SARS2 binds very well to its target, the human ACE2 receptor, but does so in a different way from that which physical calculations suggest would be the best fit. Therefore the virus must have arisen by natural selection, not manipulation.

   

   

   If this argument seems hard to grasp, it’s because it’s so strained. The authors’ basic assumption, not spelt out, is that anyone trying to make a bat virus bind to human cells could do so in only one way. First they would calculate the strongest possible fit between the human ACE2 receptor and the spike protein with which the virus latches onto it. They would then design the spike protein accordingly (by selecting the right string of amino acid units that compose it). But since the SARS2 spike protein is not of this calculated best design, the Andersen paper says, therefore it can’t have been manipulated.
   But this ignores the way that virologists do in fact get spike proteins to bind to chosen targets, which is not by calculation but by splicing in spike protein genes from other viruses or by serial passage. With serial passage, each time the virus’s progeny are transferred to new cell cultures or animals, the more successful are selected until one emerges that makes a really tight bind to human cells. Natural selection has done all the heavy lifting. The Andersen paper’s speculation about designing a viral spike protein through calculation has no bearing on whether or not the virus was manipulated by one of the other two methods.
   The authors’ second argument against manipulation is even more contrived. Although most living things use DNA as their hereditary material, a number of viruses use RNA, DNA’s close chemical cousin. But RNA is difficult to manipulate, so researchers working on coronaviruses, which are RNA-based, will first convert the RNA genome to DNA. They manipulate the DNA version, whether by adding or altering genes, and then arrange for the manipulated DNA genome to be converted back into infectious RNA.
   Only a certain number of these DNA backbones have been described in the scientific literature. Anyone manipulating the SARS2 virus “would probably” have used one of these known backbones, the Andersen group writes, and since SARS2 is not derived from any of them, therefore it was not manipulated. But the argument is conspicuously inconclusive. DNA backbones are quite easy to make, so it’s obviously possible that SARS2 was manipulated using an unpublished DNA backbone.

4. so, not just QAnon is conspiracy.

5. Yeah, typical words for covering up, check CIA history.

   Fort Detrick lab shut down in August 2019. Late 2019 military personnel from the fort detrick lab travelled to the military games in Wuhan.

6. Look no further, 1.4B Chinese knew it came from a US military lab at Fort Detrick, Md as reported in global news.

7. In the US, cases in early 2020 were 80 times higher than reported, a study shows. Same in Wuhan. Number of infected people on evacuation flights from Wuhan to 27 countries was also 80 times higher than cases reported by China about Wuhan population. If there are only 10,000 test kits available worldwide at this time you can`t test 10,000,000 people. Of course the numbers in China were higher, only some very sick Chinese with symptoms were tested at the beginning, and all 3,700 evacuated passengers.

8. WHO is primarily funded by China wtf is this

9. Fort detrick lab shut down by the cdc in August 2019. Late 2019 military personnel from the fort detrick lab travelled to the military games in wuhan.

10. Peter daszac..2109 splicing viruses. 2020 blaming frozen food and bat feceas..he has more faces than a clock tower.. https://youtu.be/IdYDL_RK–w
    Bat women is a good mother… sars-cov-2 AND RaTG13..

    Tx for poisoning the world…

11. Infecting "humanized mice" with bat coronaviruses had started the SARS-CoV-2 strain on October 6, 2019. This is based on evidence through absent telemetry data, genomic sequences, and Vero E6 cells manipulated in a biosecurity level 4 lab in Wuhan. The New York Times had warned about this in 2017 and in 2019 with its "Event 201".

12. isn't there a cover of WHO findings in Wuhan that happened recently? There is only pre-event coverage, such as your "WHO Team In Wuhan To Begin Investigating Covid Origins | NBC Nightly News
    " ?

13. Is the US the only intelligent country left on the earth? It's so obvious it came from a lab!

14. The world will be very impressed after WHO visit Fort Detrick. Why the reluctance to allow WHO to investigate Fort Detrick ? Surely the USA had nothing to hide.

15. Also, for all of the commenters saying the U.S. deserves all their COVID deaths, I must ask, what is wrong with you? You may have vitriol for the country itself but to revel in the illness and death of individuals simply because of the borders within they reside is evil and cruel. Get yourselves to your nearest place of worship and beg for forgiveness. And after that, get a life.

16. Of course not, american made it!
    Karma

17. Covid-19 cases much earlier than Wuhan have been found outside Asia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-aatw3fLL0 （COVID in Italy since September 2019, study says by Reuters) and other observations from like US CDC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi5UT-Zf4TY), Cambridge University (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB8M37gx5xM&t=8s), Spainish March 2019 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt4epky44FQ) and Brazil scientists (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCqoYrBXqTc) and also French doctors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gs6Tpi2CZE&t=12s) Now let's guess who has the most biolabs in this world.

18. Feel like time travel?
    February 2024. Over 3 billion infected worldwide and over 100 million deaths.

19. Daily reminder America deserves every single covid statistic they have

20. I am not sure where I heard this but in Dec of 2019 I heard a rumor that a deadly viral strain was taken from an east coast lab in the US and brought to wuhans lab. It may have spread during the transit , If true. It only strikes me a weird because it was the first I had heard of the virus.

21. Send more money to get the answers 🤨🤔🧐

22. NO TO THE NWO
    NO TO THE BIG RESET

23. It was never about a virus
    It was always about control

24. How can they rule out anything if there isn't actual transparency! China is a communist government. It doesn't want to share truth. It only wants to share what looks good for itself, or will help the communist party.

25. Of course is a lab experiment. If news reported what Science Mag wrote about on February 8, 2019, we wouldn't be surprised. Those interest look up the article EXCLUSIVE: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky poised to resume in the Science Magazine. I was going to attach a link but it would've looked like a spam or something so just Google it those that want to. Many websites were about it but never head it on the actual TV news.

Comments are closed.