Ex MI6 Head - It’s Man Made

[Thor]

So according to Sir Richard after reading a report, the virus is man made, it was made in the Wuhan lab and it did escape accidentally.

Now you can all line and up and say “Thor was right after all”

Wake up sheep.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rlove.html

[Orient Punxx]

Agreed - if this guy is putting his name to this, that’s good enough for me.

[Disoriented]

Zzzzzzzzz

[The Mindsweep]

Is The Daily Mail leading with this amazing exclusive this morning?

[Mick McQuaid]

This is the report being referred to, it contains the quote about the spike protein being significantly different from other SARS viruses. It makes no mention, suggestion or even merest hint of this meaning it is man made.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... BSJKroRFyJ

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Being man made isn’t the same as it being a weapon, as you were claiming.

Tbh nothing would surprise me so not saying you’re wrong, but this doesn’t prove anything

[tuffers#1]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegr ... inese/amp/

Here is the podcast where he says what he says .


Interesting how everything is falling into place .
Isnt it Funny how China the Country that everybody is in debt too
The Country that is out manufacturing every other nation on earth
Is being attacked from all quarters.



The Relationships being built .
Trump & Putin Trump & The little fat korean boy
Trump wants India in the G7 .
The constant attacks on Chinese powerhousing of the economy
5G phones now being controlled by China as They are about to launch
there versions of Apple Google etc .

Think not ?
Tik Tok Tik Tok as 1 example .

Meanwhile China just keeps getting Bigger & Richer .

America is in turmoil & desperate.

[Long slender neck]

Baa

[Celtient]

That is your idea of proof? I think I'll just hold off from acclaiming you as "right after all" in the meantime

[Mick McQuaid]

We live in a universe perfectly and minutely adapted to us, if any of the fundamental forces were just a tiny bit stronger or weaker the whole thing would fall apart. Some people think this means there must be a God, adding something even more inexplicable in an attempt to get their heads round it. Others take a more pragmatic view that if it was any other way we wouldn't be here to experience it.

Any novel virus that causes a pandemic has to have a significant adaption to make it suited to humans, if it didn't it wouldn't be there for us to observe it. This has happened many thousands of times in the past and will happen many times more. It's only in the last 100 years or so we'd even notice something like Covid 19.

I admit my knowledge on this is limited to decades old degree level biochemistry where I was hardly a diligent student but while I'd still defer to Richard Dearlove on most points even as he slips further into cantankerous dotage he clearly doesn't have a clue here. From looking at the structure of any virus, either morphologically or genetically, it would be impossible to say that it was not man made. Obviously it doesn't follow that it is man made, but that is the seed of every conspiracy theory - find something that can't be disproved and argue that it means the opposite is true.

It is entirely plausible that the virus is man made and escaped and if that is true then it would be the most massive scandal. It's plausible but unlikely. The stretch from there to it being a deliberate attack by a bioweapon is the perfect conspiracy theory, so bonkers that it can't be rationally argued against.

The way good science works is by looking at evidence to form a model that explains the evidence. Further research helps refine the model or show the model is fundamentally flawed, in this way a consensus is reached. For some things we can say our model is so good that to say it is untrue is just plain daft. The earth goes round the sun, oxygen is a gas produced by photosynthesis. For other things the consensus is the best model we have.

Conspiracy theorists work from the wrong way round on everything. Starting with a model and then as Thor says choosing the evidence that fits and claiming the puzzle is complete. For them the lone voice is always the one that's right and the consensus wrong. That's the bit I really struggle to understand and fascinates me, anything believed by the overwhelming majority of experts must be wrong, and the bloke with the tin foil hat must be right.

I realise that trying to argue rationally with a conspiracy theorist is pointless at the best of times and one that is likely to be one of the few good aliases on here doubly so. The thing is there is one conspiracy the about conspiracy theorists I absolutely believe in, although they are largely driven by useful idiots they are deliberately used and encouraged by the far right and authoritarian regimes. If people can be lead to believe that all news is false and the world is flat then they can be lead to believe in the secret cabal that rules the world and that the man everyone else says is mad is right. Putin and Trump thrive on it and use it as a deliberate strategy.

[ComeOnYouOs]

Some conspiracy theories have been proved right, so to label people with such views as 'nutters' is wrong. (I know you didn't use that word, but you alluded to it)
Just one example was The Bay Of Tonkin Incident. Look it up on Google if you're​ not sure what it was

[o-no]

Some conspiracy theories have been proved right, so to label people with such views as 'nutters' is wrong. (I know you didn't use that word, but you alluded to it)
Just one example was The Bay Of Tonkin Incident. Look it up on Google if you're​ not sure what it was

You do understand that to label someone you do actually need to use the word?

[ComeOnYouOs]

Some conspiracy theories have been proved right, so to label people with such views as 'nutters' is wrong. (I know you didn't use that word, but you alluded to it)
Just one example was The Bay Of Tonkin Incident. Look it up on Google if you're​ not sure what it was

You do understand that to label someone you do actually need to use the word?

Thats not so...you can infer something without using a particular word

[o-no]

Sorry, no, you can't label someone as something without using the actual word. That is literally the definition of the word label: "a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive", not the inference of a thing.

He is a nutter, mind.