There's also an irony in that Saint Corona, the Corona Virus's namesake, is known as the patron saint against plagues and epidemics.
Covid-19 was a plandemic lab leak
Posts
Total:
44
I don't understand how you can say "there's just countless things", and then you only give me rumors.What are the best pieces of evidence for it? Just rumors?
LMAO the one saying it's a planned lab leak says that the only evidence allowed is concrete.
LMAO!
Fuck off.
Do you think they let the lab notes leak? Obviously not.
-->
@thett3
I don’t think it was planned
Then how do you explain the preparation for Covid before the outbreak of it? Why was the virus being optimized to attack humans, and did end up optimized at 99.5%? I can't think of an alternative explanation other than plandemic.
but the evidence for a lab leak seems to be getting stronger as time goes on. It was always plausible on its face. A novel virus shows up in the exact same city as a lab which studies and engineers that exact type of virus. It’s certainly possible for a coincidence like that to occur but just looking at it from a high level it seems much more likely that the virus would’ve emerged from one of the other tens/hundreds of thousands of wet markets in China rather than the one that happened to be right next to the lab.
That's the general argument: a whole bunch of coincidences. If it were just one or two, I'd say that it's likely a coincidence. But once you string together a dozen or so, then serious questions start to be raised.
And we don't even need to guess with the initial outbreak: we know it didn't come from the Wuhan wetmarket because of the sample testing performed there (i.e. there was no trace of Covid-19 in humans OR animals, during the initial outbreak).
The behavior of everyone involved has been extremely suspicious. It’s beyond obvious that the scientific establishment doesn’t want to look too closely at what happened because they fear the potential backlash which is very disappointing in a field that’s supposed to prioritize truth above all things. The fact that people were censored for suggesting it came from a lab is very bleak
It's the same process as with race realism and 1500s Christianity. The truth towers put the authoritarian jam-down on any dissenting opinion because science (tm) isn't allowed to offend the wrong people. You got wiped from Facebook or cancelled on Twitter for merely suggesting lab leak, let alone plandemic. You then get socially ostracized because all the programming on TV says 'lab leak = conspiracy'.
I know the right pushes some wild conspiracy theories that are tied together with loose string, but the dots with Covid are large and connect REALLY well.
Side note: it was always very funny to me that “no no no the virus didn’t come from a lab it came from the disgusting food those filthy Chinese eat” was the establishment approved “woke” explanation lol
Yeah, the same wokies who are devout anti-racists. Not their first hypocrisy, either.
Still funny though :)
I'll just assume the points you dropped are ones you agreed with.
I don't understand how you can say "there's just countless things", and then you only give me rumors.What are the best pieces of evidence for it? Just rumors?LMAO the one saying it's a planned lab leak says that the only evidence allowed is concrete.LMAO!Fuck off.Do you think they let the lab notes leak? Obviously not.
Your black-and-white understanding of this is amusing but also wrong.
I'm not really interested in hearsay and rumors. They're weak evidence and even you seem to understand that.
I'm interested and have posted facts, like the fact that the virus was 99.5% optimized to attack human cells. That fact isn't a "rumor" or the equivalent of one. It's a fact that we can build on. Yes, it would be better if the lab notes were leaked but having evidence short of that isn't as worthless as rumors.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
-->
@Athias
The real plague is big Pharma masquerading as a Saint.
-->
@Avery
I don’t think it was plannedThen how do you explain the preparation for Covid before the outbreak of it? Why was the virus being optimized to attack humans, and did end up optimized at 99.5%? I can't think of an alternative explanation other than plandemic.
Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
Whatever explanation we could come up with for the issues you raise would seem far more reasonable than the idea of a bunch of nefarious individuals creating a deadly and extremely contagious virus just to unleash it to the whole planet killing millions of people.
It's the latter theory that needs to be explained to be taken seriously.
-->
@Double_R
I don’t think it was plannedThen how do you explain the preparation for Covid before the outbreak of it? Why was the virus being optimized to attack humans, and did end up optimized at 99.5%? I can't think of an alternative explanation other than plandemic.Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
You need to think about the specific arguments being made. I'm not saying, 'Tide goes in. Tide goes out. You can't explain that', as if I have no idea, therefore it's God or some divine entity.
I'm arguing that having super unlikely events, like an insanely optimized coronavirus supposedly happening naturally in nature, are all compounding and making it astronomically unlikely that the Covid-19 outbreak didn't come from a lab and wasn't planned. Moreover, I'm saying that having multiple 1/1000 x 1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000,000 etc. events makes what I'm saying a virtual certainty.
Whatever explanation we could come up with for the issues you raise would seem far more reasonable than the idea of a bunch of nefarious individuals creating a deadly and extremely contagious virus just to unleash it to the whole planet killing millions of people.It's the latter theory that needs to be explained to be taken seriously.
I personally haven't concluded this.
My conclusion (explained in the OP) that it was a lab leak plandemic. I don't know if those involved planned to have it the worldwide catastrophe that it was, or whether it got out of hand, or whether some important players were in on it and others weren't. All I argued that it was planned and that it was a lab leak.
-->
@Avery
I'm arguing that having super unlikely events, like an insanely optimized coronavirus supposedly happening naturally in nature, are all compounding and making it astronomically unlikely that the Covid-19 outbreak didn't come from a lab and wasn't planned. Moreover, I'm saying that having multiple 1/1000 x 1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000,000 etc. events makes what I'm saying a virtual certainty.
That hardly changes anything.
Every event is itself unlikely. What are the odds that me and my now wife would have found ourselves in the same place at the same time on the same day that we did? You’re painting the bullseye around the bullet hole and then using the odds of the bullet hole landing where it did to justify asserting something else which you’ve made no attempt to justify.
All I argued that it was planned and that it was a lab leak.
The “planned” part is the part you have no evidence for nor any rationale to justify.
-->
@Double_R
I'm arguing that having super unlikely events, like an insanely optimized coronavirus supposedly happening naturally in nature, are all compounding and making it astronomically unlikely that the Covid-19 outbreak didn't come from a lab and wasn't planned. Moreover, I'm saying that having multiple 1/1000 x 1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000,000 etc. events makes what I'm saying a virtual certainty.That hardly changes anything.Every event is itself unlikely. What are the odds that me and my now wife would have found ourselves in the same place at the same time on the same day that we did? You’re painting the bullseye around the bullet hole and then using the odds of the bullet hole landing where it did to justify asserting something else which you’ve made no attempt to justify.
No, no.
I'm not saying there's a 1/1,000,000 chance of *any* event happening. I'm saying there is that chance for *this* particular event to happen, or *that* particular event to happen. It's extraordinary when heads is flipped on a coin 250 times in a row. It's beyond extraordinary when there are multiple instances back-to-back of heads being flipped 250 times in a row, 50 times in a row, 150 times in a row etc. At some point you need to start asking: is the coin rigged?
All I argued that it was planned and that it was a lab leak.The “planned” part is the part you have no evidence for nor any rationale to justify.
Feel free to address the OP of this thread, rather than a quick, summative comment I made mid-way through.
-->
@Avery
I'm not saying there's a 1/1,000,000 chance of *any* event happening. I'm saying there is that chance for *this* particular event to happen, or *that* particular event to happen. It's extraordinary when heads is flipped on a coin 250 times in a row. It's beyond extraordinary when there are multiple instances back-to-back of heads being flipped 250 times in a row, 50 times in a row, 150 times in a row etc. At some point you need to start asking: is the coin rigged?
Every event which occurs does in fact have a statistically impossible odds of occurring in some context, which is why this kind of backwards rationalization is fallacious.
If a coin is flipped 250 times and lands on heads each time you would be rationally justified in accepting that the coin is rigged. If a coin is flipped a few trillion times and somewhere in that stretch it lands in heads 250 times in a row that is no where near as remarkable. In fact with enough flips it even becomes probable to happen at some point.
Your case is more like the latter.
Feel free to address the OP of this thread, rather than a quick, summative comment I made mid-way through.
Not really interested. Conspiracies will always persist through rational scrutiny because they are relentless and exhausting. It takes far less effort to ramble off accusations than to do the actual work of understanding the situation and context. This is why I prefer to step back and look at the big picture. Your arguments are a product of anomaly hunting, just like going through trillions of flips to find consecutive heads. And of course, you fail to apply that same level of scrutiny to the alternative you are implying.
Tell you what, pick just one of the points you listed as evidence that this was planned and I’ll look into it in detail and give you my thoughts. Just. One.
-->
@Double_R
I'm not saying there's a 1/1,000,000 chance of *any* event happening. I'm saying there is that chance for *this* particular event to happen, or *that* particular event to happen. It's extraordinary when heads is flipped on a coin 250 times in a row. It's beyond extraordinary when there are multiple instances back-to-back of heads being flipped 250 times in a row, 50 times in a row, 150 times in a row etc. At some point you need to start asking: is the coin rigged?Every event which occurs does in fact have a statistically impossible odds of occurring in some context, which is why this kind of backwards rationalization is fallacious.If a coin is flipped 250 times and lands on heads each time you would be rationally justified in accepting that the coin is rigged. If a coin is flipped a few trillion times and somewhere in that stretch it lands in heads 250 times in a row that is no where near as remarkable. In fact with enough flips it even becomes probable to happen at some point.Your case is more like the latter.
I think it's far more reasonable to believe the 99%+ chance explanations for the Covid outbreak being a planned lab leak, rather than the 1 in a quadrillion/quintillion chance it naturally occurred.
Feel free to address the OP of this thread, rather than a quick, summative comment I made mid-way through.Not really interested. Conspiracies will always persist through rational scrutiny because they are relentless and exhausting. It takes far less effort to ramble off accusations than to do the actual work of understanding the situation and context. This is why I prefer to step back and look at the big picture. Your arguments are a product of anomaly hunting, just like going through trillions of flips to find consecutive heads. And of course, you fail to apply that same level of scrutiny to the alternative you are implying.Tell you what, pick just one of the points you listed as evidence that this was planned and I’ll look into it in detail and give you my thoughts. Just. One.
So, my arguments are a product of "anomaly hunting", yet you haven't read the OP.
Hmmm.
I'm actually accusing the natural origins theory as being the 'going through trillions of flips', not my argument. My argument is that the planned lab leak is nearly certainly true. It's the 1 in a million chances that made me realize, 'something could be wrong here', and that allowed me to see that it's almost certain that it was a lab leak, and people were reacting to Covid before the outbreak.
I think the following argument is good evidence that it was planned: (1e) Three months before the Unit, Trump signs an executive order to initiate a vaccine taskforce Executive Order on Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United States to Promote National Security and Public Health | The White House (archive.org) In other words, he's responding to the outbreak before it happened.
-->
@Avery
So your best single piece of evidence is a 2019 EO ordering a task force to study how to improve upon flu vaccines. Let’s examine this “evidence”, starting with some context;
Over the prior 15 years we have seen outbreaks of SARS, Mers, and Ebola. All of which heightened the international community’s awareness and concern for an outbreak that could be far more dangerous. In 2014 Obama said the following in a speech in Maryland:
“There may and likely will come a time in which we have both an airborne disease that is deadly, and in order for us to deal with that effectively we have to put in place an infrastructure, not just here at home but globally, that allows us to see it quickly, isolate it quickly, respond to it quickly, so that if and when a new strain of flu like the Spanish flu crops up five years from now or a decade from now, we’ve made the investment and we’re further along to be able to catch it.”
In 2015 Obama would create a pandemic response team to deal with such a threat of it came to pass. When Obama left the White House in 2017 he left Trump a playbook on how to continue dealing with this threat.
Then two years later, Trump signes an EO ordering the formation of a task force to study this very same issue.
So let’s stop here… what is the best explanation so far? Does any of this seem unusual or suspicious? No, this is frankly common sense. Trump is the president, preparing for such eventualities is literally his job and he has every reason to be concerned about this.
But despite this, you hear about this EO and you think this is evidence that COVID 19 was planned.
So at minimum, when you make this allegation, you’re saying that President Trump and his administration was part of the planning process. This plan then would have also had to include China since that’s where it originated. So the US and China came together to plan a virus that would cripple the entire world, mind you in an election year when everything to that point was going great for Trump economically, and the pay off was… what exactly?
This is just one of the many hurdles your claim needs to settle before it can be reasonably considered serious.
In order for this to qualify as evidence it needs to first lack any reasonable explanation. It doesn’t, it’s common sense that our government would have been taking steps to prepare for such an event. It also needs to provide answers to basic questions. It doesn’t, it only creates a far more insane narrative to explain.
This is the opposite of evidence.
-->
@Double_R
I'm not saying there's a 1/1,000,000 chance of *any* event happening. I'm saying there is that chance for *this* particular event to happen, or *that* particular event to happen. It's extraordinary when heads is flipped on a coin 250 times in a row. It's beyond extraordinary when there are multiple instances back-to-back of heads being flipped 250 times in a row, 50 times in a row, 150 times in a row etc. At some point you need to start asking: is the coin rigged?Every event which occurs does in fact have a statistically impossible odds of occurring in some context, which is why this kind of backwards rationalization is fallacious.If a coin is flipped 250 times and lands on heads each time you would be rationally justified in accepting that the coin is rigged. If a coin is flipped a few trillion times and somewhere in that stretch it lands in heads 250 times in a row that is no where near as remarkable. In fact with enough flips it even becomes probable to happen at some point.Your case is more like the latter.I think it's far more reasonable to believe the 99%+ chance explanations for the Covid outbreak being a planned lab leak, rather than the 1 in a quadrillion/quintillion chance it naturally occurred.[No response from Double R]
You completely dropped this. You've conceded that your case is conspiratorial, in regard to a natural origin for Covid, whilst my lab leak case is the 99+% likely one.
So your best single piece of evidence is a 2019 EO ordering a task force to study how to improve upon flu vaccines.
You're missing the point of my argument.
The response to Covid came 3 months BEFORE Covid. That's what the document shows. They're making vaccines BEFORE the Covid outbreak. That's the point of referring to the EO.
Why would you make vaccines for something that doesn't exist? Maybe because there was planning involved...
Over the prior 15 years we have seen outbreaks of SARS, Mers, and Ebola. All of which heightened the international community’s awareness and concern for an outbreak that could be far more dangerous. In 2014 Obama said the following in a speech in Maryland:
By 2014, the NIH was granting funding to studying coronavirus "UNDERSTANDING THE RISK OF BAT CORONAVIRUS EMERGENCE" (yes, it is literally titled that, even back in 2014) GRANT to ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE INC. | USAspending . The eventual coronavirus was 99.5% optimized to attack human cells (Sars was 17%), had the unique CGG-CGG diimer-code (no other coronavirus had this) and had the Furin Cleavage site (no other coronavirus had this).
To put it in plain English: this virus was genetically optimized.
How are we meant to believe that Covid-19 sprung out of nowhere, when there was funding towards virus optimization half-a-decade before its release?
“There may and likely will come a time in which we have both an airborne disease that is deadly, and in order for us to deal with that effectively we have to put in place an infrastructure, not just here at home but globally, that allows us to see it quickly, isolate it quickly, respond to it quickly, so that if and when a new strain of flu like the Spanish flu crops up five years from now or a decade from now, we’ve made the investment and we’re further along to be able to catch it.”In 2015 Obama would create a pandemic response team to deal with such a threat of it came to pass. When Obama left the White House in 2017 he left Trump a playbook on how to continue dealing with this threat.
It's not hard to predict a pandemic when your leading health organization (NIH) is genetically engineering coronavirus to attack humans.
So at minimum, when you make this allegation, you’re saying that President Trump and his administration was part of the planning process.
No.
It's entirely possible that Trump signed the document without knowing the specifics of the coronavirus optimization being conducted by the NIH. The inverse is also possible. Trump may or may not have been part of the planning.
-->
@Avery
I think it's far more reasonable to believe the 99%+ chance explanations for the Covid outbreak being a planned lab leak, rather than the 1 in a quadrillion/quintillion chance it naturally occurred.[No response from Double R]You completely dropped this. You've conceded that your case is conspiratorial, in regard to a natural origin for Covid, whilst my lab leak case is the 99+% likely one.
I didn’t drop anything. To the extent this qualifies as an argument, it was the same point I already responded to recycled. But even that’s being generous, all you did was state your opinion, which is the very thing we’re disagreeing on.
Your statement is also fallacious, you’re just making up numbers. There is no way to deduce the probability of your explanation being correct because that’s not how probabilities work. Probability is a forward looking concept, using it to look backwards is meaningless because some result necessarily occurred and that result is always going to be astronomically unlikely within any given context. I’ve already explained this to you.
The response to Covid came 3 months BEFORE Covid. That's what the document shows. They're making vaccines BEFORE the Covid outbreak.
That’s not what the document shows. Did you even read it?
The EO created a task force to study current vaccine development methods and find ways to improve its productiveness so we can be better prepared for the eventual global outbreak. The order to the task force was for them to come up with a 5 year plan to accomplish this.
By 2014, the NIH was granting funding to studying coronavirus "UNDERSTANDING THE RISK OF BAT CORONAVIRUS EMERGENCE" (yes, it is literally titled that, even back in 2014)
There is nothing suspicious about a health agency funding the study of a disease type that has the potential to spur a global pandemic. This is common sense.
And yes, it is titled that way. Just because you never heard of a coronavirus till 2020 and just because you were unaware of how they are believed to come into existence doesn’t mean the scientists who study this stuff for a living didn’t.
How are we meant to believe that Covid-19 sprung out of nowhere, when there was funding towards virus optimization half-a-decade before its release?
You are moving the goal posts.
Your claim is that the pandemic was planned. That necessarily means it was created and unleashed intentionally. Even if I granted you that the virus was created in a lab, that still does not justify your claim.
I’m not going to go back and forth with you on the lab funding and optimization part. When I agreed to engage with you on this I asked you for one premise to discuss, you provided the executive order that’s that’s the one point I’m discussing with you.