02-27-2023, 01:30 AM
The WSJ is a yellow-press rag.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origi...k-807b7b0a
Opportunistic scumbags:
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-r...wuhan-lab/
Per CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/26/politics/...index.html
Intelligence agencies can make assessments with either low, medium or high confidence. A low confidence assessment generally means that the information obtained is not reliable enough or is too fragmented to make a more definitive analytic judgment or that there is not enough information available to draw a more robust conclusion.
Looks like they've identified the unreliable materials the unreliable assessment was unreliably based upon:
One of the sources said that the new assessment from the Department of Energy is similar to information from a House Republican Intelligence Committee report released last year on the origins of the virus.
Response from an actual virologist:
https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmuss...1628843010
No progenitor virus = no reverse genetics or isolation
No reverse genetics or isolation = no virus in cultureDespite 3 years of a global search for this evidence, it has not materialized, while evidence supporting zoonosis associated with Huanan has continued to stack up.
At some point, an absence of evidence might just be evidence of absence.
As I said before, I am willing to reconsider my hypothesis if presented with verifiable, affirmative evidence of a progenitor virus at WIV.
...I'll keep an open mind when and if we ever get more information about what has caused the DOE to change their assessment (as well as toward other emerging evidence about the origin of SARS-CoV-2).
But for now, I see no evidence that suggests the current scientific evidence base is incorrect. And that evidence base continues to suggest the pandemic originated via zoonotic spillover at the Huanan market, in association with the live animal trade.
No virus in culture = no infectious virus at all
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origi...k-807b7b0a
Opportunistic scumbags:
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-r...wuhan-lab/
Per CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/26/politics/...index.html
Intelligence agencies can make assessments with either low, medium or high confidence. A low confidence assessment generally means that the information obtained is not reliable enough or is too fragmented to make a more definitive analytic judgment or that there is not enough information available to draw a more robust conclusion.
Looks like they've identified the unreliable materials the unreliable assessment was unreliably based upon:
One of the sources said that the new assessment from the Department of Energy is similar to information from a House Republican Intelligence Committee report released last year on the origins of the virus.
Response from an actual virologist:
https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmuss...1628843010
No progenitor virus = no reverse genetics or isolation
No reverse genetics or isolation = no virus in cultureDespite 3 years of a global search for this evidence, it has not materialized, while evidence supporting zoonosis associated with Huanan has continued to stack up.
At some point, an absence of evidence might just be evidence of absence.
As I said before, I am willing to reconsider my hypothesis if presented with verifiable, affirmative evidence of a progenitor virus at WIV.
...I'll keep an open mind when and if we ever get more information about what has caused the DOE to change their assessment (as well as toward other emerging evidence about the origin of SARS-CoV-2).
But for now, I see no evidence that suggests the current scientific evidence base is incorrect. And that evidence base continues to suggest the pandemic originated via zoonotic spillover at the Huanan market, in association with the live animal trade.
No virus in culture = no infectious virus at all