The likely source of Covid

This from the Wall Street Journal, one of the few reliable and objective news sources:

In the four years since the SARS-CoV-2 virus was unleashed on the world, data have steadily accumulated supporting the hypothesis that it emerged from a laboratory. The latest information, released last month, makes a formidable case that the virus is the product of laboratory synthesis, not of nature.

This startling fact will probably take some time to sink into the national consciousness, given the mainstream media’s sustained inability to report the issue objectively. Editors have failed to think beyond the extreme politicization that requires liberals to oppose the lab-leak hypothesis. Science journalists are too beholden to their sources to suspect that virologists would lie to them about the extent of their profession’s responsibility for a catastrophic pandemic.

Here are some salient facts that haven’t been clearly reported to readers of the mainstream press:

In March 2018 a team of American and Chinese virologists applied to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as Darpa, seeking a $14 million grant to manipulate viruses related to SARS-CoV-1, the bat virus that caused a minor epidemic in 2002. Their goal was to identify bat viruses in Asia with the highest potential for jumping to people and to immunize bats so they wouldn’t infect soldiers in the region. 

The proposal for Project DEFUSE specified that the viruses’ infectivity would be enhanced by inserting into them a genetic element known as a furin cleavage site. Depending on the starting viruses, this protocol could have produced SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, which has a distinctive furin cleavage site. 

In 2022 three biologists, Valentin Bruttel, Alex Washburne and Antonius VanDongen, guessed that if SARS-CoV-2 had been generated in a lab by a standard method, it would have been assembled from six sections of lab-synthesized DNA with the help of a biological agent called BsmBI. On analyzing the virus’s structure, they found evidence for the seams between sections and other distinctive marks of the assembly process.

Their paper was derided as “kindergarten molecular biology” by the virologists who are favorites of the mainstream press for their opposition to the lab-leak hypothesis. But a batch of documents reveal new details about the DEFUSE proposal and confirm that the three authors were on target. Emily Kopp of U.S. Right to Know obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Interior Department, having noticed that a researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey was a member of the DEFUSE team.

The new documents, which are background planning papers and drafts for the DEFUSE proposal, call for assembling SARS-like viruses from six sections of DNA, and include a cost estimate for purchase of the BsmBI restriction enzyme—exactly as the three authors had inferred. This clearly strengthens, perhaps conclusively, their contention that the virus is synthetic. Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, says it raises “to the level of a smoking gun” the genetic evidence that the virus was manufactured.

Other strong indicators of the virus’s laboratory birth include the furin cleavage site, possessed by none of the other more than 1,500 members of its viral family with which in nature it might swap genetic material. The codons—“words” used by the genetic code to specify the units of proteins—that define the cleavage site are those preferred by humans, not coronaviruses, pointing to their likely origin in a lab kit. And whereas most viruses require repeated tries to switch from an animal host to people, SARS-CoV-2 infected humans out of the box, as if it had been preadapted while growing in the humanized mice called for in the DEFUSE protocol.

The authors of the proposal were a team led by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York, Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina. Although Mr. Baric is the leading expert on the technology, Mr. Daszak intended for much or most of the work to be done in Ms. Shi’s laboratory, despite giving a different impression to Darpa. He writes in the recently discovered documents that “I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team. Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan.”

Ms. Shi did most of her work with SARS-type viruses in the minimal-containment condition known as BSL2, whereas Mr. Baric, who regarded the viruses as seriously dangerous, worked in a more secure lab known as BSL3. Mr. Daszak noted that the lower-security labs would save money: “The BSL-2 nature of work on SARSr-CoVs makes our system highly cost-effective relative to other bat-virus systems.” Mr. Baric replied to this comment that the viruses might be grown under BSL2 safety conditions in China, but “US researchers will likely freak out.”

Mr. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance last year asserted that the DEFUSE project was never implemented: “The proposal was not funded and the work was never done, therefore it cannot have played a role in the origin of COVID-19.” But science is a competitive business. After Darpa turned down the DEFUSE proposal in February 2019, the researchers in Wuhan might have secured Chinese government funding and gone ahead by themselves. Viruses made according to the DEFUSE protocol could have been available by the time Covid-19 broke out, sometime between August and November 2019. This would account for the otherwise unexplained timing of the pandemic along with its place of origin. (Mr. Daszak, Mr. Baric and Ms. Shi didn’t respond to emails seeking comment. Chinese officials have demanded that the U.S. “stop defaming China” by raising the possibility of a lab leak.)

One piece is missing from the puzzle—the identity of the parent viruses from which SARS-CoV-2 was derived. The Chinese authorities have rigorously suppressed all information about the viruses being kept in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But the documentary and scientific evidence already assembled seems sufficient to understand the genesis of the pandemic that killed millions.

It is a crime against humanity to develope these viruses irrespective of the country or origin.

Anyone associated with these criminal activities should and must be held to account as well sanctioned in travel, funding and co-operation with any form of finiancial assistance.

For countries espically Western nations to provide any form of assistance to the Chinese is sheer madness.

When will the free world wake up to the fact that their governments are out of control and irresponsible.

It’s been perfectly obvious from the start the Covid was created in a Chinese lab and either escaped or was let out on purpose. 

I agree with AJH in that no country has any business in “ playing “ with these deadly diseases. 

It’s been perfectly obvious from the start the Covid was created in a Chinese lab and either escaped or was let out on purpose.

Major science outlets like Science.org and Scientific American were still dying on the natural origin hill last year. Doubt much has changed in that respect. Money talks, bullshit walks. That's what those who worship science like a religion don't get.

Snarkhole will tell you it's a right wing  conspiracy...

This shows what happens in the World after 2000.   In 2014 Obama banned that type o research to be done in the  USA    In 2017 - days before leaving the WH - Obama  without informing Trump or anybody from the  transition team - withdrew the banning  order .

It was because of the 2014 ban US scientists negotiated a deal by which the research would be done in the Wuhan Lab and funded by the US  Government.   What is surprising is that in 2017 Dr Faucci said there would be a pandemic before the end of Trump's term of office.   In December 2019 before there were much news about Covid 19 Bill Gate  said that 2020 will be a great year for vaccine development and production - he may have been old by Dr Death.   These 2 recorded statements seem to indicate that the release of the virus might have been planned/

In the USA  the pandemic became politicized and Trump was blamed for the impact the virus had on the USA.   It became a major issue in the 2020 US Presidential election.   The fact is that the USA  Government plainly told the media and the internet platforms that the lab originating of the virus was a conspiracy theory and should be ignored and even banned by the internet platforms.    

Trump in  August 2020 became aware of the fact that the 2014 ban was cancelled by Obama  and  he approved that the ban be re-instated and simultaneously approved that a full scientific investigation be done as to the  origin of the Covid 19 virus.   It was from the start clear the time that the  virus did not originate from natural resources - but before the investigation was completed  Biden terminated it and promised the investigation would be done by the FBI and CIA  and a report on the investigation be reported on within 90 days.     The report was not forthcoming within 90 days and  after 6 months a reports saw the light that stated the investigation was inconclusive.   - which also was a lie as well.   In evidence before the .House Wray of the   openly stated that the virus came from the Wuhan Lab.  

If the truth was known from the start there would have been a much more scientifically based process  and  the scoundrels in the USA  responsible for the combatting of the virus would have been dealt with.    Since Biden took over the question of dealing  with pandemics in future would be done by the WHO organization - who would decide what measures against any pandemic would be taken  dealing with the issue on a worldwide basis.   .

In the meantime the USA had built and  completed a new Bio-lab in 2018 in  Odessa where gain-of-function research are being done since that date.  The main function of he lab is fully controlled and operated by the USA  Government.    What is the fascination of  some USA  scientists  with bio-lab development of viruses such as Covid 19?.    The people who did what those scientists were up to and still are handling of the issue should be in lunatic asylums or in jail for crimes against humanity - but that would never happen.

sharktwit what a revelation.................

Wake up you idiot.

...if you take the lock step reaction to Covid, right across the globe, then it's not too far fetched that the lab leak was deliberate to boot...looked like a planned event...who's the puppet master?

ButtPlug, I said accident - to emphasize that I don't think it was intentional.

1: Natural
2. Lab error
3. Lab intentional
4. God created Covid (Although perhaps that would fall under natural)

I don't consider Option 3 or option 4 to be realistic

 (Although perhaps that would fall under natural)...indeed...intentional...you'd be surprised...to me it looks like TPTB are intentionally fucking up the world...you seem to think it's inept blunders...

Informed by evidence….hahaha. A derivative of informed by THE science. What’s wrong with based on evidence….a fair chunk of which was in the lead article.

Chat GPT says:

To construct a counterargument to the claim presented by the Wall Street Journal regarding the lab-origin hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2, it's essential to consider the breadth of scientific inquiry and evidence supporting the natural origin theory. This perspective emphasizes the complexity of viral evolution and the substantial evidence that points towards a zoonotic origin of the virus. Key points in this counterargument would include:

1. Zoonotic Transmission History: Historically, the majority of new infectious diseases in humans have been zoonotic in origin. Viruses such as SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV have natural reservoirs in animal populations and made the jump to humans through intermediate hosts. This pattern supports the likelihood of a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2, consistent with the emergence patterns observed in other coronaviruses.

2. Genetic Evidence and Evolution: Comprehensive genomic analyses have shown that SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to several bat coronaviruses, suggesting a natural evolutionary lineage. Scientists have identified potential intermediate hosts, such as pangolins, that carry coronaviruses with genetic sequences similar to those of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein. This evidence points to a natural recombination event between viruses in wildlife species.

3. Lack of Direct Evidence for Laboratory Origin: Despite investigations, there has been no direct evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was created or modified in a laboratory. The genetic features of the virus, including the furin cleavage site, can arise naturally during virus evolution. Moreover, the scientific community has scrutinized the sequences of SARS-CoV-2 and has not found any definitive proof of artificial manipulation.

4. Global Surveillance and Research Practices: Research on coronaviruses, including gain-of-function studies, is conducted under strict regulatory and ethical guidelines worldwide. The purpose of such research is to understand virus transmission and pathogenesis better, ultimately aiding in the development of vaccines and therapeutics. Accusations of unethical practices undermine the global scientific community's efforts to prepare for and combat emerging infectious diseases.

5. Misinterpretation of Scientific Endeavors: Proposals like Project DEFUSE, aimed at preventing pandemics by understanding virus transmission, are often misinterpreted. The scientific inquiry into virus manipulation for vaccine development or other preventive measures should not be conflated with the creation of pathogens. The DEFUSE project's non-implementation and the speculative nature of its connection to COVID-19's origin highlight the dangers of drawing conclusions without concrete evidence.

6. Transparency and International Collaboration: The global scientific community has called for transparency, data sharing, and collaboration in investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Prematurely concluding a lab origin without exhaustive investigation undermines these efforts and could politicize the pandemic response, detracting from the focus on prevention, containment, and preparedness for future outbreaks.

In summary, while the lab-origin hypothesis has gained attention, a comprehensive assessment of available evidence supports the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. The focus should remain on enhancing global surveillance, research collaboration, and zoonotic disease prevention strategies to mitigate the impact of current and future pandemics.

Summarize original post:

The Wall Street Journal article presents a detailed argument suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 virus, responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, likely originated from a laboratory rather than from natural sources. This conclusion is drawn from accumulating evidence over the past four years, including recent information that strongly supports the lab-origin hypothesis. Key points from the article include:

1. March 2018 Proposal to DARPA: A team of American and Chinese virologists, including prominent figures from the EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the University of North Carolina, sought funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for Project DEFUSE. The project aimed to manipulate viruses related to SARS-CoV-1 to prevent potential transmission to soldiers in Asia. The proposal included enhancing the viruses' infectivity by adding a furin cleavage site, which is a notable feature of SARS-CoV-2.

2. Biologists' Analysis: In 2022, three biologists proposed that if SARS-CoV-2 were lab-generated, it would exhibit certain genetic markers of assembly from synthesized DNA sections. Their analysis, initially criticized, was later validated by documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, which confirmed the process described in the DEFUSE proposal.

3. Evidence of Synthetic Origin: The documents revealed plans to assemble SARS-like viruses using methods and components precisely as the biologists had inferred. This discovery, along with the presence of the furin cleavage site and the virus's immediate human infectivity, strongly suggests a laboratory origin.

4. Laboratory Practices and Security Concerns: The article discusses differing levels of biosafety in handling SARS-related viruses between the Chinese and American labs involved. It notes cost considerations over safety and potential bypass of higher biosafety levels for convenience and expense reduction.

5. Funding and Implementation Uncertainty: Despite the DEFUSE project not being funded by DARPA, speculation exists that the research may have proceeded with alternative funding, potentially leading to the creation of SARS-CoV-2 as per the project's specifications. This could explain the timing and origin of the COVID-19 outbreak.

6. Lack of Transparency and Cooperation: The article highlights the lack of information regarding the parent viruses of SARS-CoV-2 and the suppression of relevant data by Chinese authorities. It calls into question the accountability and openness of the research community involved.

The article criticizes the mainstream media's handling of the lab-leak hypothesis and suggests a need for a more objective and thorough investigation into the origins of the pandemic, which has had devastating global impact

Occam's Razor, a principle named after the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham, is a problem-solving and scientific reasoning heuristic that suggests a preference for simplicity. It posits that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be chosen. The principle is often paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one."

The core idea behind Occam's Razor is not that the simplest path is always correct, but rather that unnecessary complexity should be avoided. This approach is valuable in scientific modeling, theory development, and everyday decision-making because it encourages the elimination of extraneous variables or assumptions. In practice, applying Occam's Razor helps to focus on what is known and proven, avoiding the complication of models or explanations with unverified, speculative elements.

It's important to note that Occam's Razor is a heuristic, meaning it is a guiding principle rather than an irrefutable law of nature. It is used to streamline investigations and thought processes but does not guarantee the correctness of the simplest hypothesis. In many cases, it serves as a useful starting point for analysis, promoting efficiency and clarity in the search for explanations or solutions.

.

The first person who identified the virus as a gain of function virus was the French Professor who discovered the virus involving AIDS and he claimed that it was a manufactured virus coming  from the Wuhan Lab and not the Wuhan fish market situated about 600 meters from the lab.   A senior scientist alerted the Chinease Government about the virus, but   was silenced by the Chinese Government - allowing him to go back to work  where he got infected and passed away,   

There were some Army activities at the Wuhan Lab in September 2019 - shown on satellite photos and videos - and the first believe was it was coupled to something that went wrong at the lab.    It later was that the activity was in act resulting from the Covid virus,    

The first paragraph was, um, ok...........................

but you need to decode the second please.

All these years and you still can't translate Mike into Earth-spe ak?

Accusations of unethical practices undermine the global scientific community's efforts to prepare for and combat emerging infectious diseases.

In other words, scientists must be considered infallible. No criticism may be leveled at them because that is bad for the "scientific community". They must in no way be considered capable of making mistakes, being compromised, acting unethically, being bought. 

This is pretty much how religion got away with all its evils. The priest is a man of god, don't you dare accuse him of fiddling with children because that will compromise the sanctity of the church and stop us from doing god's work.

As we say in Afrikaans, Chat GPT se vuil onderrok hang ver uit with that statement. In every single section of society people mess things up, either deliberately or accidentally. There is 0 grounds for excluding the scientific community from that. They are not gods.

Scientists are not infallible.

Just recently the long held "belief" that the universe was 14 billion years old was smashed.
Based on updated "estimates" the universe is double this age at the very least.

Their is no conclusive evidence that the the virius is not natural.
Who ever is trying to establish the reason for Covid has the burden of proof.

Gain of function research does not prove that Covid was created in a lab.

There's no proof either way...proof is not needed to conclude that it most probably came from the coronavirus lab in Wuhan...no rocket science needed to put 1 plus 1 together...like you noted with Occam's...

Occam wus a sharp ou .

"Occam wus a sharp ou ."

Jon Stewart is no idiot either.

SB

"Their is no conclusive evidence that the the virius is not natural.
Who ever is trying to establish the reason for Covid has the burden of proof."

The fact is that there is no proof the a new virus never encountered before could develop from natural causes.    So the American scientists involved in controlling  the development of the gain-in-function research obviously started and promoted the natural development to cover their arses.  They had no proof that Covid  19 came from natural resources - and scientists from Hong-Kong and India - as well as the Professor I referred to above - stated clearly th e opposite.

Because the  pandemic was politicized the media banned any discussion of the topic  That alone was clearly an indication that bureaucratic censorship kicked in.    In recent years there are censorship practices that showed the way things are dealt with in the USA.   If that censorship pr ogram was necessary - the situation is clear - guilty as alleged.             

What's it now, 27 billion, Shark?

Bliksim!

I mean 13 billion was already more than we could wrap our heads around...but 27 billion is just nuts. 

How much must have come in and out of existence during that time? 

Anyway, the problem isn't that scientists make mistakes. Mistakes is kinda what science is often about.

The problem is that the people funding scientists, and companies where scientists work, have their own agendas and it doesn't always align with the scientific method.

Scientists sit at the apex of the human intellectual pyramid. And they're proportionally a small group. But, influence them and you influence everybody.

This is partially what Epstein was about, wasn't it? And it's pretty clear at this point that he was working for somebody with a lot of money and with their own goals. He wasn't just a pervy billionaire?

And this is a guy that was caught. How many more Epsteins are out there? There are likely a few Chinese versions too...and Russian ones. 

It's the corruption of scientists that's a problem. 

As I said before, the moment scientists started politicising the lab leak hypotheses, it became clear that things were fishy. 

Here is what ChatGPT says...

ChatGPT - Downplaying either of two possible solutions without sufficient evidence goes against the scientific method and ethics. It undermines objectivity, evidence-based decision-making, and transparency, which are core to scientific integrity.

And h ere's one story from the world we live in...

The story involving companies that sell sugar products and their influence on scientific research dates back several decades, with some of the most notable revelations coming to light in recent years. This involves instances where companies within the sugar industry were found to have paid scientists to downplay the health risks associated with sugar consumption and to shift the blame for heart disease and other health issues onto fats instead.

Historical Context and Revelations:

1. The 1960s Studies: One of the most significant disclosures came from a historical analysis published in 2016 in the journal "JAMA Internal Medicine." This analysis uncovered that in the 1960s, the Sugar Research Foundation (known today as the Sugar Association) paid three Harvard scientists to publish a review article in the "New England Journal of Medicine" that criticized studies linking sucrose consumption to heart disease and highlighted studies implicating fats instead. The article did not disclose the sugar industry's funding or involvement.

2. Impact on Dietary Guidelines: The publication of this review and similar efforts are believed to have influenced dietary guidelines and public perception for decades, contributing to the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets that dominated nutritional advice in the latter half of the 20th century. This redirection of blame away from sugar contributed to the obesity epidemic and increased rates of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders.

Remember that apex of the intellectual pyramid that I mentioned above?

What if it turns out Covid did come from a lab and with more fervent investigation we may have discovered that early on in the pandemic, perhaps saving many lives and a bunch of money?

Based on the number of casualties and monetary deficit, and when you consider that at the time people were thinking both of those numbers could be higher, it's insane to have treated the investigation into the origins of Covid as an either-or.

And one can't help but wonder why the overarching opinion was that the lab leak hypothesis was deemed so outlandish...when it very obviously wasn't.

What is clear is that the scientists involved in the gain and function research fought desperately to prevent that the true origin was becoming public knowledge.   They themselves knew the virus was link to their research program - all they wanted to do was to save their arses.

The situation became so bad that Dr Faucci was caught lying in evidence he gave in the Senate - but the Biden Administration would not charge him with any offence .     

We knew this virus was man made years ago. 

We knew the research started at a University in North Carolina but after Obummer realized it was too DANGEROUS to his Regime to allow the research to be done in the USA so it was outsourced to Wuhan. As was other gain of function research outsourced to Ukraine. 

The payments to Wuhan went via the CDC to Peter Dasak at Eco Alliance and then on to Wuhan.

I posted articles on all this years ago. 

Dr Martin examined the patents regarding the Covid virus proving this was a man made virus. That to I posted. 

I posted how the inventor of the PCR test said his invention couldn't be used to test for Covid and I posted about thst. 

I posted articles about natural immunity herd immunity etc. 

I posted articles about the Vaxxed people dying in hospitals etc etc etc. Covering vituslly every si glw aspect of this plandemic.

People will talk of the 100s of billions made by Pfizer and Modena. But not get into any other reason why the Globalists created the virus. 

It's was all to do with the Great Reset which requires an economic collapse followed by what they call Build Back Better. It's was about their desire for a digital passport and social credit scores. About population reduction. etc. 

And most certainly it was about getting as many people as possible to get the deadly jab. The excess deaths reported by insurance companies show how successful this was. The Died Suddenly phenomenon was born. 

It was used to unseat Trump via mail in ballots, elections that took weeks to complete etc. 

Any dissenting voice was silences no matter how distinguished. Only one narrative was allowed. Fear and panic were dumped on the public.

Fake PCR tests fueled the Plandemic. 

People were murdered in hospitals because of deadly protocols. Therapeutics that were effective were trashed. Remdesivir had a kill rate of 54% and the lung machines finished people off. 

Were are now told that the jab didn't stop you getting infected or stop transmission. 

We are informed by Gates that Covid was little more than a flu. 

NOW THE CDC SAYS IF YOU GET COVID TREAT IT LIKE  YOU WOULD A FLU!!!

It turns out the average age of those dying of Covid was 83 with 2 morbidities.  Very much the same as the average age of death. 

Fauci is on video repeatedly saying masks are ineffective against a coronavirus. He told Congress there was no science behind social distancing. 

Countries that never had tbe vaxx did far better than those that did. Hospitals were paid fortunes to enforce the deadly Covid protocols and to call any death a Covid death. 

The whole Plandemic was one lie heaped upon another. 

The result is very few people are now taking Boosters etc. Public trust in doctors, Big Pharma has plummeted. 

What is apparent  now is that  people were not really being killed by Covid but that the real killers were the hospital protocols and the jabs. 

Like the CDC in effect admitted as did Gates, Covid is like a flu. People die of flu particularly the elderly with morbidities. 

There has to be accountability. Personally I don't see this going away. Too many people lost their lives and too many were severely injured. Then there was the economic devastation.

Now they are talking about disease X. 

At some point even the severely brainwashed like StavASS , Blobbie and Sharktwit will have to admit they were once again duped. 

The notion that Covid had a natural cause is dead. 

The truth about the deadly nature of the Covid Jabs is advancing every day and lawsuits are underway. 

SB

Just one question?    Knowing  that |gain in function research in all democratic and civilized countries - why is US  scientists involved in it?      When in the USA  St Obama banned such research in the USA and days before his departure from the WH he cancelled cancelled the ban without informing the transition team?       

Let’s extract from the article I posted:

‘ Other strong indicators of the virus’s laboratory birth include the furin cleavage site, possessed by none of the other more than 1,500 members of its viral family with which in nature it might swap genetic material. The codons—“words” used by the genetic code to specify the units of proteins—that define the cleavage site are those preferred by humans, not coronaviruses, pointing to their likely origin in a lab kit. And whereas most viruses require repeated tries to switch from an animal host to people, SARS-CoV-2 infected humans out of the box, as if it had been preadapted while growing in the humanized mice called for in the DEFUSE protocol.’

…….

A lot more evidence than has ever been produced by the evolved in nature crowd.  Evidence that together with proximity of the gain of function research and the outbreak…make a compelling case. The best null hypothesis. 

And yet this very obvious theory was suppressed with all the power of ‘the science’ and ‘the media’.

To construct a counter-argument against the claim that certain features of SARS-CoV-2, such as the furin cleavage site and its immediate human infectivity, are strong indicators of a laboratory origin, it's crucial to delve into the complexities of viral evolution and zoonotic transmission. The following points provide a basis for rebuttal:

1. Natural Evolution of Furin Cleavage Sites: While the presence of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is highlighted as unusual, it's not unprecedented in the coronavirus family. Similar sites have been observed in other viruses, indicating that natural selection can favor the evolution of such features when they confer a survival advantage, such as enhanced transmissibility or infectivity. The evolutionary pressures in a wild or intermediate host environment could naturally select for a virus with a furin cleavage site if it enhances the virus's ability to infect host cells.

2. Codon Usage: The argument that the codons specifying the furin cleavage site are preferred by humans, not coronaviruses, overlooks the plasticity and adaptability of viral genomes. Viruses frequently undergo mutations that optimize their replication in the host species. The codon usage within SARS-CoV-2 could reflect adaptation to human hosts following zoonotic transfer, a process observed in other emerging infectious diseases. Codon usage bias is a complex phenomenon influenced by multiple factors, including host immune evasion and optimization for the host's translational machinery.

3. Immediate Human Infectivity: The assertion that SARS-CoV-2's capability to infect humans "out of the box" points to preadaptation in a laboratory setting does not account for the unknown extent of its circulation in animal hosts before human spillover. Many emerging pathogens undergo unnoticed transmission among animal populations, gradually accumulating mutations that facilitate human infection. The initial detection of a virus in humans does not necessarily coincide with its first spillover event; rather, it may represent the point at which it has become sufficiently adapted to become noticeable.

4. Historical Precedents of Zoonotic Spillovers: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 follows a well-documented pattern of zoonotic spillover events, where animal viruses adapt to humans and lead to outbreaks. Previous examples include the original SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1) and the MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV), both of which originated in animal hosts before adapting to human transmission. These precedents support the plausibility of a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 through similar evolutionary pathways.

5. Scientific Consensus and Ongoing Research: The scientific community continues to investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2, with a wide consensus leaning towards a natural origin. This consensus is based on the accumulation of genetic, epidemiological, and ecological evidence pointing to wildlife markets and the potential role of intermediate hosts. Ongoing research aims to trace the virus's evolutionary pathway more precisely, acknowledging that many viruses have origins that are initially obscure but later clarified through dedicated scientific inquiry.

In summary, while the laboratory origin hypothesis raises important questions about biosecurity and research ethics, the evidence supporting a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 aligns with established patterns of zoonotic disease emergence. The features cited as indicative of a laboratory origin can be explained within the context of natural viral evolution and adaptation to human hosts.

.Instead of a counter-argument, this is Chat GPT re-inforcing the argument 

-------------------------

To reinforce the argument presented regarding the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2, focusing on its unique characteristics and the context of its emergence, the following revision aims to enhance the persuasiveness of the original text:

"Significant indicators strongly suggest SARS-CoV-2's genesis within a laboratory setting, notably its furin cleavage site—a feature distinctly absent from over 1,500 other members of its viral family. This characteristic is crucial for its ability to bind and enter human cells, and its uniqueness among coronaviruses strongly suggests artificial insertion. Furthermore, the specific codons—essentially the genetic 'syntax' that directs protein formation—that delineate this cleavage site align more closely with human genetic preferences than with those typical of natural coronavirus sequences. This alignment not only suggests but arguably evidences, the virus's synthesis from a laboratory origin, employing techniques and components commonly found in genetic engineering labs.

Moreover, the rapidity and efficiency with which SARS-CoV-2 adapted to human transmission starkly contrast with the evolutionary trajectories observed in naturally occurring zoonotic viruses, which typically undergo numerous mutations before achieving such compatibility with human hosts. This immediate adaptability of SARS-CoV-2, akin to a pathogen pre-tuned for human infection, mirrors outcomes expected from experimental conditions, such as those involving humanized mice models outlined in the DEFUSE protocol, rather than a spontaneous zoonotic transfer.

This body of evidence, substantially more concrete and compelling than any presented by proponents of a natural origin theory, aligns closely with the geographic and temporal proximity of gain-of-function research to the initial outbreak. These correlations establish a robust foundation for considering a laboratory origin as the most plausible initial hypothesis.

Despite the strength and specificity of these indicators, there has been a concerted effort by certain scientific and media entities to downplay or outright dismiss the laboratory origin theory, leveraging 'consensus science' as a means to suppress alternative hypotheses. This obstruction not only undermines the scientific method, which thrives on open inquiry and debate, but also impedes the critical examination of laboratory practices and biosecurity measures necessary to prevent future pandemics. The compelling case for a laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2, bolstered by specific genetic features and the context of its emergence, demands a thorough and unbiased investigation, free from the influence of preconceived narratives or institutional biases."

SB

By the way you will support gain-of-function research?   Are you bloody nuts too?    Trump appointed a special task team to undertake he scientific evaluation you mentioned above - Biden terminated it  - probably to save face  for his criminal adherents and not wanting to upset his Chinese paymasters.

Biden handed over control of the virus issue to  the WHO - but they also moved the gain-in-function research to their protectorate Ukraine.

You will never learn about sticking to facts and not fiction - especially not when true facts are provided and believe all the lying  BS coming  out of the leftist media - especially in the Odessa bio-lab built by the USA and from where they operate the research .   

Hope the Russians capture Odessa soon and stp the USA gain-in-fucntion research BS in Ukraine.      ..