Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every death is the result of "sudden cardiac arrest", which is the reason cardiac arrest is not an acceptable diagnosis as a cause of death.
Yes but in that same vein; deaths from cardiac arrest attributed to covid couldn't be considered an acceptable COD either. And covid does cause heart attacks, which frequently do result in a sudden cardiac arrest, so I think it's valid to count them in covid mortality. Just like the vaccine seems to be causing heart attacks, resulting in sudden cardiac arrest & should be counted as vaccine mortality.
You are using the same "Not from, just with" rationale for the vaccine that you have been arguing against for covid, with the covid-deniers.
Substantial peer feedback has been received that this record does not follow the norms of scientific rigour or balance, and thus the main claims may not stand the test of scientific scrutiny."
An extremely detailed 193 pages, containing 144 citations published by a well-credentialed MD/PhD would be considered beyond the "norm" of scientific rigour. Given that it was forwarded to 27 members of the WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-215 & The Lancet COVID-19 Commission ... That seems like a lot of trouble to go to; if one intended to be "misleading".
Yes but in that same vein; deaths from cardiac arrest attributed to covid couldn't be considered an acceptable COD either. And covid does cause heart attacks, which frequently do result in a sudden cardiac arrest, so I think it's valid to count them in covid mortality. Just like the vaccine seems to be causing heart attacks, resulting in sudden cardiac arrest & should be counted as vaccine mortality.
You are using the same "Not from, just with" rationale for the vaccine that you have been arguing against for covid, with the covid-deniers.
No, cardiac arrest should not be listed as COD on a COVID-19 death certificate.
No one has determined that the vaccines have caused a single heart attack.
Quote:
An extremely detailed 193 pages, containing 144 citations published by a well-credentialed MD/PhD would be considered beyond the "norm" of scientific rigour. Given that it was forwarded to 27 members of the WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-215 & The Lancet COVID-19 Commission ... That seems like a lot of trouble to go to; if one intended to be "misleading".
"Forwarded to" does not mean that any of those actually agreed to be peer reviewers. It is best that the author not choose the peer reviewers anyway.
It is the actual publisher saying that there is criticism of the article that calls its conclusions into doubt. That may be a prelude to retraction.
I did not read all 193 pages. What I did read was opinion, not original research.
They've also found that the virus had been circulating in Europe well before the outbreak in China. It's likely that the same can be inferred for China and the US. The problem is that the virus doesn't cause symptoms in most people while it gets transmitted without public awareness.
A disease that is difficult to observe and assess by scientists is not one that would've been engineered in the lab. A bioweapon or engineered virus should be more lethal and easier to detect.
The Trump administration approached the CIA with the goal of changing their assessment that it was not a bioweapon. That's where this controversy comes from. There is money behind these campaigns to defend his rash claims on any given topic.
A disease that is difficult to observe and assess by scientists is not one that would've been engineered in the lab.
The disease was not engineered in the lab, the virus was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
A bioweapon or engineered virus should be more lethal and easier to detect.
Is there any scientific rationale for that statement ?
Otherwise, it's just an opinion.
An engineered virus can fall anywhere on the lethality spectrum, and anywhere on the detectability spectrum.
Evidence continues to mount that it was engineered in the lab, then escaped from there.
Not as a bioweapon, but ironically in the quest for a pan-vaccine.
The disease was not engineered in the lab, the virus was.
Is there any scientific rationale for that statement ?
Otherwise, it's just an opinion.
An engineered virus can fall anywhere on the lethality spectrum, and anywhere on the detectability spectrum.
Evidence continues to mount that it was engineered in the lab, then escaped from there.
Not as a bioweapon, but ironically in the quest for a pan-vaccine.
Just stating something doesn't make it so.
Disease is causation of virus. Without disease causation in humans, there is no reason for discussion.
The disease was likely not engineered in a lab unless you can match to the sample of the 2015 UNC-CH coronavirus that had the spike protein modified to be transmissible to humans. There is much more to variance than just the spike protein. There are already several variants found in the wild that could've mutated to the present forms over that time.
It is an opinion of the intelligence community and the scientific rationale they applied is the low mortality rate among able-bodied people and the poor transmission in an open-air environment. They couldn't get the CIA to change their opinion.
There is no evidence showing that it was engineered in the Wuhan lab and escaped from any lab at the present time. They compared the COVID-SARS-19 virus to the 2003 SARS virus sample in the lab to come up with the designation that there was a new mutation. A made-up Bayes computation of events means nothing. If anything, making up things has the contrary effect of discrediting the bioweapon theory. The more you have to make up things, the worse it looks for those advocating a conspiracy theory.
..
Evidence continues to mount that it was engineered in the lab, then escaped from there.
Not as a bioweapon, but ironically in the quest for a pan-vaccine.
...Even Kristian Andersen, PhD, a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, and lead author of a research letter published Mar 17 in Nature Medicine on the origins of the virus, first thought that COVID-19 was just as likely to have been accidentally released from a lab as it was to have come from nature.
But that was before he learned more about COVID-19 and related coronaviruses, which have features already seen in nature. "There are lots of data and lots of evidence, as well as previous examples of this coming from nature," he said. "We have exactly zero evidence or data of this having any connection to a lab."
And while Andersen, like other prominent virologists, says that he can't completely rule out the possibility that the virus came from a lab, the odds of that happening are very small. He says the new coronavirus clearly originated in nature, "no question about it by now."..
...
"Forwarded to" does not mean that any of those actually agreed to be peer reviewers. It is best that the author not choose the peer reviewers anyway.
It is the actual publisher saying that there is criticism of the article that calls its conclusions into doubt. That may be a prelude to retraction.
I did not read all 193 pages. What I did read was opinion, not original research.
Dr. Steven Carl Quay’s 193 pages is an interesting and perhaps a worthwhile read for an inquisitive mind.
Though quite technical- he uses a common language to point out the facts signaling a lab origin of the virus by comparing SARS CoV-2 to previously wild originated SARS and MERS viruses, wild coronaviruses and the “lab work” viruses
Had time to just read 11 pages out of 193.
Dr. Quay’s train of thought seems very logical, factual.
I think it is very brave of him to undertake this analysis, find a place to publish it (even with unfavorable disclaimer from the publisher- it is a Wild West “cancel” culture out there, the publishers are risking it too)
Dr.Quay has no dog in this fight unlike his opponents who have all the reasons for a potential “cover-up”
Honestly, we need to know the truth for a very simple reason of creating some stringent oversight of the use of the taxpayers money to fund a potentially devastating research in the country we do not trust.
Not that we should do it in any other country including our own- why can’t we do a virtual simulation research?- if needs be? Without any viral agent?
We owe it to the people who lost their lives, health, livelihood.
Will read more of Dr Quay’s analysis when I have more time...fascinating.
Some reputable virologists like a Dutch scientist Marion Koopman who was on the team which discovered camels as an intermediary host in the outbreak of MERS says nothing is “off the table” concerning the lab origin of SARS CoV-2.
She is the one who tracked the mink farms coronavirus outbreak.
We shall see
...It is an opinion of the intelligence community and the scientific rationale they applied is the low mortality rate among able-bodied people and the poor transmission in an open-air environment. They couldn't get the CIA to change their opinion....
Low mortality argument does not fly: the currently circulating virus could mean an unfinished final product even if someone (and I doubt that) was developing a bio weapon.
And do you really think we could know what is truly CIA’s opinion?
The glaring absence of an intermediate host so far as well as a claim/evidence that all infections started from the same ( unnaturally) linage according to some scientists is a valid argument ( as well as other arguments/ evidence) for a lab spill.( nobody claims that it was intentional- so no conspiracies here)
Preponderance of evidence is the key. Read Dr. Steven C .Quay’s analysis- see what do you think?
Dr. Steven Carl Quay’s 193 pages is an interesting and perhaps a worthwhile read for an inquisitive mind.
Though quite technical- he uses a common language to point out the facts signaling a lab origin of the virus by comparing SARS CoV-2 to previously wild originated SARS and MERS viruses, wild coronaviruses and the “lab work” viruses
Had time to just read 11 pages out of 193.
Dr. Quay’s train of thought seems very logical, factual.
I think it is very brave of him to undertake this analysis, find a place to publish it (even with unfavorable disclaimer from the publisher- it is a Wild West “cancel” culture out there, the publishers are risking it too)
Dr.Quay has no dog in this fight unlike his opponents who have all the reasons for a potential “cover-up”
Honestly, we need to know the truth for a very simple reason of creating some stringent oversight of the use of the taxpayers money to fund a potentially devastating research in the country we do not trust.
Not that we should do it in any other country including our own- why can’t we do a virtual simulation research?- if needs be? Without any viral agent?
We owe it to the people who lost their lives, health, livelihood.
Will read more of Dr Quay’s analysis when I have more time...fascinating.
Some reputable virologists like a Dutch scientist Marion Koopman who was on the team which discovered camels as an intermediary host in the outbreak of MERS says nothing is “off the table” concerning the lab origin of SARS CoV-2.
She is the one who tracked the mink farms coronavirus outbreak.
We shall see
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik4me
Low mortality argument does not fly: the currently circulating virus could mean an unfinished final product even if someone (and I doubt that) was developing a bio weapon.
And do you really think we could know what is truly CIA’s opinion?
The glaring absence of an intermediate host so far as well as a claim/evidence that all infections started from the same ( unnaturally) linage according to some scientists is a valid argument ( as well as other arguments/ evidence) for a lab spill.( nobody claims that it was intentional- so no conspiracies here)
Preponderance of evidence is the key. Read Dr. Steven C .Quay’s analysis- see what do you think?
The publisher has flagged Quay's "analysis" as unreliable. Odds are it will be retracted.
Inability to identify an intermediate species does not mean there was not one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
