• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT: We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives

Awesome. Let’s see your citation of scientific evidence showing such.
Let’s see your citation of scientific evidence showing it was something else.
 
Let’s see your citation of scientific evidence showing it was something else.
Sure.
“It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2.”
 
Sure.
“It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2.”
Omg you are citing the discredited proximal origins paper? 🤣 🤣 🤣


 
Let’s see your citation of scientific evidence showing it was something else.
It’s here. From last year-


Here’s a news story about it for those who can only get their science from Twitter:


Now where are YOUR scientific references?
 
Omg you are citing the discredited proximal origins paper? 🤣 🤣 🤣



Awesome. Please show your scientific citations that discredit this paper.
I’d LOVE to read them
 
Awesome. Please show your scientific citations that discredit this paper.
I’d LOVE to read them
Summary from Grok:

The "Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" paper, published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, has faced significant criticism and calls for retraction, primarily due to allegations of scientific misconduct, misrepresentation, and political influence. Here's how the paper has been discredited, based on available information:

1. Authors' Private Beliefs Contradicted Public Claims: Evidence from emails, Slack messages, and interviews reveals that the authors, including Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes, and Robert F. Garry, initially believed a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2 was plausible or even likely. However, the paper publicly concluded that "SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," a stance that some argue they did not genuinely hold. This discrepancy has been labeled as misleading and a failure of scientific integrity, with critics like Nate Silver and Richard H. Ebright calling it "scientific fraud" and "unethical."

2.Influence from Government Officials: Documents and testimonies suggest that high-ranking officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins of the NIH, played a role in shaping the paper's narrative. A February 1, 2020, teleconference involving these officials and the authors is cited as a turning point where pressure may have been applied to downplay the lab leak hypothesis. The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and other investigations claim that the NIH exerted "undue influence" to promote a zoonotic origin narrative, potentially to protect U.S. funding of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or avoid diplomatic tensions with China.

3. Lack of Evidentiary Support: Critics argue that the paper's conclusions were based on assumptions rather than robust scientific evidence. For instance, the paper dismissed lab origin scenarios by claiming that SARS-CoV-2's features, like the optimized receptor-binding domain (RBD) and polybasic cleavage site, were found in nature, but private communications show the authors acknowledged these features could be consistent with lab manipulation. A Defense Intelligence Agency study and other analyses have questioned the paper's scientific rigor, suggesting its arguments were speculative and not definitive.

4. Ghost Authorship and Editorial Interference: Jeremy Farrar, a key figure in coordinating the paper, is alleged to have acted as a "ghost author" by influencing its content, including changing the description of lab manipulation from "unlikely" to "improbable." This interference, along with appeals to Nature Medicine's editor to publish the paper, is seen as compromising the peer-review process and justifying calls for retraction under ethical publishing standards, such as those from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

5. Political Motivation Over Science: The House Select Subcommittee and other sources have accused the authors of allowing political motives to override scientific inquiry. For example, Kristian Andersen reportedly admitted in private messages that "politics was injected into science," and the paper was amended to more strongly rule out a lab leak after initial rejection by Nature, suggesting a bias toward a preconceived narrative.

6. Public and Congressional Backlash: The paper's influence—cited over 2,800 times and accessed millions of times—has made it a target for scrutiny. Congressional hearings, such as those led by Chairman Brad Wenstrup, have highlighted the paper as part of a "cover-up" that damaged public trust by suppressing debate on the lab leak hypothesis. Former CDC Director Robert Redfield and others have described the paper as "antithetical to science" for precluding open discussion.
 
See the leaked chat messages from the authors.
Yeah .. bs .
Let’s see actual science instead of rando tweets of “ leaked chat messages”,

Sweet baby Jesus. You whackadoodles will scream “ fake” on a peer reviewed scientific study with all the methods ,results and , and statistical analysis to be critiqued.

Yet a rando tweet about “ chat messages” ?
You’ll slurp that up like contented kittens with a bowl of milk.

Lmao.
 
Summary from Grok:

The "Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" paper, published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, has faced significant criticism and calls for retraction, primarily due to allegations of scientific misconduct, misrepresentation, and political influence. Here's how the paper has been discredited, based on available information:

1. Authors' Private Beliefs Contradicted Public Claims: Evidence from emails, Slack messages, and interviews reveals that the authors, including Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes, and Robert F. Garry, initially believed a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2 was plausible or even likely. However, the paper publicly concluded that "SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," a stance that some argue they did not genuinely hold. This discrepancy has been labeled as misleading and a failure of scientific integrity, with critics like Nate Silver and Richard H. Ebright calling it "scientific fraud" and "unethical."

2.Influence from Government Officials: Documents and testimonies suggest that high-ranking officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins of the NIH, played a role in shaping the paper's narrative. A February 1, 2020, teleconference involving these officials and the authors is cited as a turning point where pressure may have been applied to downplay the lab leak hypothesis. The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and other investigations claim that the NIH exerted "undue influence" to promote a zoonotic origin narrative, potentially to protect U.S. funding of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or avoid diplomatic tensions with China.

3. Lack of Evidentiary Support: Critics argue that the paper's conclusions were based on assumptions rather than robust scientific evidence. For instance, the paper dismissed lab origin scenarios by claiming that SARS-CoV-2's features, like the optimized receptor-binding domain (RBD) and polybasic cleavage site, were found in nature, but private communications show the authors acknowledged these features could be consistent with lab manipulation. A Defense Intelligence Agency study and other analyses have questioned the paper's scientific rigor, suggesting its arguments were speculative and not definitive.

4. Ghost Authorship and Editorial Interference: Jeremy Farrar, a key figure in coordinating the paper, is alleged to have acted as a "ghost author" by influencing its content, including changing the description of lab manipulation from "unlikely" to "improbable." This interference, along with appeals to Nature Medicine's editor to publish the paper, is seen as compromising the peer-review process and justifying calls for retraction under ethical publishing standards, such as those from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

5. Political Motivation Over Science: The House Select Subcommittee and other sources have accused the authors of allowing political motives to override scientific inquiry. For example, Kristian Andersen reportedly admitted in private messages that "politics was injected into science," and the paper was amended to more strongly rule out a lab leak after initial rejection by Nature, suggesting a bias toward a preconceived narrative.

6. Public and Congressional Backlash: The paper's influence—cited over 2,800 times and accessed millions of times—has made it a target for scrutiny. Congressional hearings, such as those led by Chairman Brad Wenstrup, have highlighted the paper as part of a "cover-up" that damaged public trust by suppressing debate on the lab leak hypothesis. Former CDC Director Robert Redfield and others have described the paper as "antithetical to science" for precluding open discussion.
Great. If the results were so manipulated it would be easy for a scientific research paper to refute their results and conclusions.

Let’s see that paper or papers please.
 
Great. If the results were so manipulated it would be easy for a scientific research paper to refute their results and conclusions.

Let’s see that paper or papers please.
Keep you head in the sand if you want. I showed multiple reasons why the paper has been discredited.
 
I agree. It needs to be banned. It's too dangerous

 
Keep you head in the sand if you want. I showed multiple reasons why the paper has been discredited.
No you didn’t . You showed someone’s conjecture based on nothing.

Meanwhile, threegoofs just cited another independent study that CONFIRMS THE RESULTS OF THE GENETIC TESTING IN THE STUDY I Cited.

“Common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 linked to Huanan market matches the global common ancestor

Wildlife mitochondrial DNA identified in samples from stalls positive for SARS-CoV-2

DNA from raccoon dogs, civets, and other wildlife species detected in market samples

Genotypes of potential hosts were reconstructed for retracing animal geographic origins”

Face it . You are the one believing propaganda.

You didn’t even know these studies existed before you started repeating the propaganda and conjecture on social media.

Here is what I want to know.
Social media which is where you obviously get your information.

Told you that Covid was a hoax
Told you it was going to just go away
Told you it was “ just like the flu”
Told you the vaccine was dangerous
Told you the vaccine didn’t effect transmission
Told you that masks didn’t work for source control.

And it’s been proven wrong EVERY SINGLE DANG TIME.

Why do you continue to use it as a source?
 
Since scientists began playing around with dangerous pathogens in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling feathers.

Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology — research that, if conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world — no fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the organization.

So the Wuhan research was totally safe, and the pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission — it certainly seemed like consensus.

We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory’s research, the details that have since emerged show that safety precautions might have been terrifyingly lax.

Now they tell us, but most of us knew pretty quickly they were lying to us. People in power who lied to us need to be held responsible.


Wtf is this tirade about
 
No you didn’t . You showed someone’s conjecture based on nothing.

Meanwhile, threegoofs just cited another independent study that CONFIRMS THE RESULTS OF THE GENETIC TESTING IN THE STUDY I Cited.

“Common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 linked to Huanan market matches the global common ancestor

Wildlife mitochondrial DNA identified in samples from stalls positive for SARS-CoV-2

DNA from raccoon dogs, civets, and other wildlife species detected in market samples

Genotypes of potential hosts were reconstructed for retracing animal geographic origins”

Face it . You are the one believing propaganda.

You didn’t even know these studies existed before you started repeating the propaganda and conjecture on social media.

Here is what I want to know.
Social media which is where you obviously get your information.

Told you that Covid was a hoax
Told you it was going to just go away
Told you it was “ just like the flu”
Told you the vaccine was dangerous
Told you the vaccine didn’t effect transmission
Told you that masks didn’t work for source control.

And it’s been proven wrong EVERY SINGLE DANG TIME.

Why do you continue to use it as a source?
That study he cited included the fraud Kristian Andersen.



1000007819.webp

As the Fauci Mails revealed, he went from one extreme to the other within four days, which curiously coincided with him receiving an additional 'dose of funding' from Fauci.

He's also known for his quick-fire labeling game: if you dare to question his 'scientific integrity', you're suddenly branded as 'anti-science'. Remember the time when @elonmusk called for Fauci's prosecution, and Andersen's response was '**** you, Elon'?

It's long overdue for pseudo-scientists, Andersen included, to be held accountable for the confusion and chaos they've contributed to. The degree of damage they've inflicted on society is simply staggering. But here's the silver lining - the internet never forgets, and neither will I.


 
That study he cited included the fraud Kristian Andersen.



View attachment 67563752

As the Fauci Mails revealed, he went from one extreme to the other within four days, which curiously coincided with him receiving an additional 'dose of funding' from Fauci.

He's also known for his quick-fire labeling game: if you dare to question his 'scientific integrity', you're suddenly branded as 'anti-science'. Remember the time when @elonmusk called for Fauci's prosecution, and Andersen's response was '**** you, Elon'?

It's long overdue for pseudo-scientists, Andersen included, to be held accountable for the confusion and chaos they've contributed to. The degree of damage they've inflicted on society is simply staggering. But here's the silver lining - the internet never forgets, and neither will I.




So, the studies?
 
No you didn’t . You showed someone’s conjecture based on nothing.

Meanwhile, threegoofs just cited another independent study that CONFIRMS THE RESULTS OF THE GENETIC TESTING IN THE STUDY I Cited.

“Common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 linked to Huanan market matches the global common ancestor

Wildlife mitochondrial DNA identified in samples from stalls positive for SARS-CoV-2

DNA from raccoon dogs, civets, and other wildlife species detected in market samples

Genotypes of potential hosts were reconstructed for retracing animal geographic origins”

Face it . You are the one believing propaganda.

You didn’t even know these studies existed before you started repeating the propaganda and conjecture on social media.

Here is what I want to know.
Social media which is where you obviously get your information.

Told you that Covid was a hoax
Told you it was going to just go away
Told you it was “ just like the flu”
Told you the vaccine was dangerous
Told you the vaccine didn’t effect transmission
Told you that masks didn’t work for source control.

And it’s been proven wrong EVERY SINGLE DANG TIME.

Why do you continue to use it as a source

That study he cited included the fraud Kristian Andersen.



View attachment 67563752

As the Fauci Mails revealed, he went from one extreme to the other within four days, which curiously coincided with him receiving an additional 'dose of funding' from Fauci.

He's also known for his quick-fire labeling game: if you dare to question his 'scientific integrity', you're suddenly branded as 'anti-science'. Remember the time when @elonmusk called for Fauci's prosecution, and Andersen's response was '**** you, Elon'?

It's long overdue for pseudo-scientists, Andersen included, to be held accountable for the confusion and chaos they've contributed to. The degree of damage they've inflicted on society is simply staggering. But here's the silver lining - the internet never forgets, and neither will I.



So your scientific studies refuting the science we cited?

I would like you to answer this question.

When you see your physician.
Do you want him/her to base their medical evaluation and treatment of you on the best available peer reviewed scientific studies?

Or based on what they have read on twitter x?

Can you answer?
 
So your scientific studies refuting the science we cited?

I would like you to answer this question.

When you see your physician.
Do you want him/her to base their medical evaluation and treatment of you on the best available peer reviewed scientific studies?

Or based on what they have read on twitter x?

Can you answer?
The studies you have cited included known liars and frauds. It's funny that you weren't aware if that.

I don't want my physician to base his medical evaluation based on studies that included known liars and frauds.
 
The studies you have cited included known liars and frauds. It's funny that you weren't aware if that.

I don't want my physician to base his medical evaluation based on studies that included known liars and frauds.
Great. You say the studies that have liars and frauds.

Then it should be easy for you to find research that disputes their findings.

See that’s the problem. Your source claims they are “ liars and frauds “
But offers NO RESEARCH tha shows they are.

How do you know your sources saying “ these are liars and frauds”. Aren’t lying to you?

Who is more trustworthy ?

A peer reviewed study , that’s reviewed by other experts in the field who can review and double check the studies methods, the statistics and the findings.?

Or a tweet that can be the result of a Russian bot?
 
Awesome. Let’s see your citation of scientific evidence showing such.


 


1. Great. Let’s start with the first one.
“People who read the report said the assessment was made with "low confidence," according to the Journal, referring to the lowest of three confidence intervals in the intelligence community.”
Then the cia. Low confidence

2. So you have no science. Let’s see the science that supports the lab leak theory as the predominant theory instead of political agencies.
 
Great. You say the studies that have liars and frauds.

Then it should be easy for you to find research that disputes their findings.

See that’s the problem. Your source claims they are “ liars and frauds “
But offers NO RESEARCH tha shows they are.

How do you know your sources saying “ these are liars and frauds”. Aren’t lying to you?

Who is more trustworthy ?

A peer reviewed study , that’s reviewed by other experts in the field who can review and double check the studies methods, the statistics and the findings.?

Or a tweet that can be the result of a Russian bot?
Omg, you think I need to disprove fraudulent studies with other studies? 😆
 
Omg, you think I need to disprove fraudulent studies with other studies? 😆
Well yes. What proof do you have that the studies in question are fraudulent.?


Thats a claim you are throwing out there with zero proof. Why should anyone believe a claim made on twitter x??
 


She asserts that the trial vaccine was produced and purified differently, avoiding the use of plasmids and E. coli-derived DNA, while the mass-produced version relied on magnetic beads for purification—a shift she finds significant.

According to Dr. Humphries, this change introduced contaminants like lipopolysaccharides, which she describes as transit proteins capable of shuttling material through cell membranes, contrary to claims that the vaccine contents would remain localized in the deltoid muscle and quickly disintegrate.

She further highlights the inclusion of pseudouridine in the mRNA, a substitution for uridine intended to evade rapid immune destruction and enhance the vaccine’s persistence in the body. Dr. Humphries argues this modification may have amplified adverse immune responses, potentially explaining why vaccinated individuals experienced severe reactions to subsequent coronavirus exposures.

She questions whether these production shortcuts were cost-driven, noting the absence of plasmids in the scaled-up process, and warns of the broader implications of such alterations on safety and efficacy.
 


She asserts that the trial vaccine was produced and purified differently, avoiding the use of plasmids and E. coli-derived DNA, while the mass-produced version relied on magnetic beads for purification—a shift she finds significant.

According to Dr. Humphries, this change introduced contaminants like lipopolysaccharides, which she describes as transit proteins capable of shuttling material through cell membranes, contrary to claims that the vaccine contents would remain localized in the deltoid muscle and quickly disintegrate.

She further highlights the inclusion of pseudouridine in the mRNA, a substitution for uridine intended to evade rapid immune destruction and enhance the vaccine’s persistence in the body. Dr. Humphries argues this modification may have amplified adverse immune responses, potentially explaining why vaccinated individuals experienced severe reactions to subsequent coronavirus exposures.

She questions whether these production shortcuts were cost-driven, noting the absence of plasmids in the scaled-up process, and warns of the broader implications of such alterations on safety and efficacy.


An Antivaxxer on X......

EVERYONE DRINK.....
 
Back
Top Bottom