On 21/12/2021 19:16, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 15:52, Spike wrote:
>>> On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
>>> lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
>>> foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc.

>> Easily done. BTDT etc, etc, etc.

> No, the Chinese have both military and civilian labs, and you haven't
> answered why they would be doing top secret military research in a
> civilian lab frequented by foreign nationals and part funded by foreign
> governments.

In a Communist regime, /everyone/ works for the state.

The Top Secret part of the bioweapon programme will be handled by
virology labs staffed by the military. Basic research, genome
determination, etc, can be carried out in a nominal civilian lab
monitored by a military liaison officer (who in order to fool the
foreigners, would be in civilian dress and have a nominal cover role).
You're very wet behind the ears, aren't you.

> [Snip irrelevant emotive bullshit]

The so-called 'irrelevant emotive bullshit' was taken from an account of
those times in Stalin''s Soviet Union by a district governor. In
addition millions more fell victim to forced labour, deportation,
famine, massacres, and detention and interrogation by Stalin’s henchmen.
I'm surprised you so lightly dismiss the random deaths of millions in a
communist state, especially when you yourself posed the question to
which this was an answer.

--
Spike

On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:

>> I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant scientific
>> papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata - you have read.
>> So far you have not answered.

> I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications

Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.

> That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
> already existed in nature.

And the authoritative, definitive, peer-reviewed paper stating this is
where?

--
Spike

On 21/12/2021 23:41, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:

>> That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
>> already existed in nature.
> If it is "this virus" that decimated the population of Wuhan and ran
> rampant round the rest of the world, it would have decimated the
> population of Laos and then run rampant round the rest of the world.
> But it didn't, which shows that the virus, whilst similar, is nowhere
> near as infectious to humans.

> Therefore it is not convincing evidence. It is best described as a
> similarity. Others might more accurately describe it as a diversionary
> tactic. One that you appear to have fallen for.

WHS

Someone with a peculiar world-view seems to have made a leap from 'a
virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one' to 'the Wuhan virus
already existed in nature' on the basis of no discernible evidence
whatsoever - not even the Laotians are claiming that.

--
Spike

In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a nothingburger.

Bob's MO.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <599de5e975charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <599dcb3047noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <XnsAE067E6936BE937B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > China is a big bully, especially in Asia. You don't need to prove
> > > it.

> > > Look at the Spartly Islands in the South China Seas. China is making
> > > a territorial grab there and also building aritificial islands for
> > > military use. The maps clearly show China is in the wrong but it
> > > makes no difference.

> > > Even if Chinese master plans for genetically creating Covid came to
> > > light, China would just stonewall the West.

> > > I don't like the Yellow Peril any more than you. They may be smart
> > > and hard working but they're totally untrustworthy.

> > Agreed. Part of the problem is the extent to which we now rely upon
> > them for manufactured goods because as a country we failed to act so
> > as to avoid so much of our industry and IPR from being shifted there.

> > Jim

> I think "failed to act" is a bit kind - MT actively encouraged it.

As have various later politicians, etc. To me one of the most crazy
examples was allowing ARM to be sold off outwith the UK given their
relevance to modern mobile devices, etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 10:16 22 Dec 2021, Spike said:
> On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant
>>> scientific papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata
>>> - you have read. So far you have not answered.
>
>> I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications
>
> Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
> Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.

What are your qualifications, "Spike"?

In article <j2gc6dF734iU2@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 19:16, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 21/12/2021 15:52, Spike wrote:
> >>> On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:

> >>> Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
> >>> lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
> >>> foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc.

> >> Easily done. BTDT etc, etc, etc.

> > No, the Chinese have both military and civilian labs, and you haven't
> > answered why they would be doing top secret military research in a
> > civilian lab frequented by foreign nationals and part funded by foreign
> > governments.

> In a Communist regime, /everyone/ works for the state.

> The Top Secret part of the bioweapon programme will be handled by
> virology labs staffed by the military. Basic research, genome
> determination, etc, can be carried out in a nominal civilian lab
> monitored by a military liaison officer (who in order to fool the
> foreigners, would be in civilian dress and have a nominal cover role).
> You're very wet behind the ears, aren't you.

About 30 years ago, I had to organise for a party of Chinese to learn about
BBC Engineering. This involved tours and lectures. The topic of one of the
lectures interested me, so I sat in on it. These were delivered in English
with pauses to the interprester to translate. Suddekny, one of thec hinese
engineers said "Stop you've got that all wrong." and proceeded to say
something in Chinese to his collegues. I then reallised that the
'interpreter' was actually their secret police guard.

> > [Snip irrelevant emotive bullshit]

> The so-called 'irrelevant emotive bullshit' was taken from an account of
> those times in Stalin''s Soviet Union by a district governor. In
> addition millions more fell victim to forced labour, deportation,
> famine, massacres, and detention and interrogation by Stalin‘s henchmen.
> I'm surprised you so lightly dismiss the random deaths of millions in a
> communist state, especially when you yourself posed the question to
> which this was an answer.

> --

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <599e404af7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This is a nothingburger.

> Bob's MO.

> Jim

And there's Jim's - attack the person - again.
Bob.

On 22/12/2021 10:14, Spike wrote:
>
> On 21/12/2021 19:05, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Your knowledge of Communist methodology is breathtaking in its paucity.
>>
>> At least it's knowledge, not baseless conspiracy theories unsupported by any evidence.
>
> No knowledge = no knowledge

So why are you still shouting of your arse from a position of no
knowledge and no *EVIDENCE* to offer. Don't bother to answer that, we
know it's because you can't bear to lose arguments.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for what you claim, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/12/2021 23:41, Indy Jess John wrote:
> > On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
>> already existed in nature.
>>
> If it is "this virus" that decimated the population of Wuhan and ran
> rampant round the rest of the world, it would have decimated the
> population of Laos and then run rampant round the rest of the world. But
> it didn't, which shows that the virus, whilst similar, is nowhere near
> as infectious to humans.

No, it proves nothing of the sort, merely that SARS-CoV-2 was given an
opportunity, most probably by 'wild' animal farming that this almost
identical virus (one genetic change away) didn't happen to get.

> Therefore it is not convincing evidence. It is best described as a
> similarity.  Others might more accurately describe it as a diversionary
> tactic. One that you appear to have fallen for.

This Loatian bat virus is just a single genetic change away from
SARS-CoV-2, and further there exist other viruses, for example one that
infects pangolins, that are *better* at infecting humans than
SARS-CoV-2, so your argument or implication that it appears to have been
designed to infect humans particularly well is just not true. We were
unlucky enough, but we could very easily have been even more unlucky.

You have still to come up with any *EVIDENCE* to support the lab-leak
theory, and your steadfast belief for one has no rational basis.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/12/2021 10:16, Spike wrote:
>
> On 21/12/2021 23:41, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
>>> already existed in nature.
>>
>> If it is "this virus" that decimated the population of Wuhan and ran
>> rampant round the rest of the world, it would have decimated the
>> population of Laos and then run rampant round the rest of the world.
>> But it didn't, which shows that the virus, whilst similar, is nowhere
>> near as infectious to humans.
>>
>> Therefore it is not convincing evidence. It is best described as a
>> similarity. Others might more accurately describe it as a diversionary
>> tactic. One that you appear to have fallen for.
>
> Someone with a peculiar world-view

It's only 'peculiar' to irrational conspiracy theorists like you, to
everyone else it's just rational deduction from known facts.

> seems to have made a leap from 'a
> virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one' to 'the Wuhan virus
> already existed in nature' on the basis of no discernible evidence
> whatsoever - not even the Laotians are claiming that.

You've already been given links to the evidence, so stop trying to deny
its existence.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/12/2021 10:16, Spike wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>
>>> I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant scientific
>>> papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata - you have read.
>>> So far you have not answered.
>
>> I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications
>
> Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
> Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.

LIAR! It was you who first doubted other's, in particular my,
qualifications, only to discover that they're better than yours; well
there's an obvious answer to that, if you can't stand the heat, stay out
of the question, don't use casting groundless dsoubts on the
qualifications and understanding of others to bolster a losing argument
when yours are obviously too poor to piss into the wind with. You
created this scourge for your back, and it's going be applied as long as
you keep trolling here.

>> That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
>> already existed in nature.
>
> And the authoritative, definitive, peer-reviewed paper stating this is
> where?

You've already been shown links to it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/12/2021 13:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <599e404af7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a nothingburger.
>>
>> Bob's MO.
>
> And there's Jim's - attack the person - again.

Because there is no substantive argument, the person is the problem here.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13:48 22 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <599e404af7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is a nothingburger.
>
>> Bob's MO.
>
>> Jim
>
> And there's Jim's - attack the person - again.
>
> Bob.

He's not attacking you but describing your method.

On 22/12/2021 17:33, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/12/2021 10:16, Spike wrote:
>> On 21/12/2021 23:41, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:

>>>> That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
>>>> already existed in nature.

>>> If it is "this virus" that decimated the population of Wuhan and ran
>>> rampant round the rest of the world, it would have decimated the
>>> population of Laos and then run rampant round the rest of the world.
>>> But it didn't, which shows that the virus, whilst similar, is nowhere
>>> near as infectious to humans.

>>> Therefore it is not convincing evidence. It is best described as a
>>> similarity. Others might more accurately describe it as a diversionary
>>> tactic. One that you appear to have fallen for.

>> Someone with a peculiar world-view seems to have made a leap from 'a
>> virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one' to 'the Wuhan virus
>> already existed in nature' on the basis of no discernible evidence
>> whatsoever - not even the Laotians are claiming that.

> It's only 'peculiar' to irrational conspiracy theorists like you, to
> everyone else it's just rational deduction from known facts.

The link you posted was to a puff-piece. It was /not/ a peer-reviewed
scientific paper.

It is /not/ evidence for your /supposition/ that

'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'

means

'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words)

Not even the Laotians are claiming that.

--
Spike

On 22/12/2021 17:38, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/12/2021 10:16, Spike wrote:
>> On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:

>>>> I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant scientific
>>>> papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata - you have read.
>>>> So far you have not answered.

>>> I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications

>> Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
>> Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.

> LIAR!

You're quite a vulgar little person, aren't you.

>>> That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
>>> already existed in nature.

>> And the authoritative, definitive, peer-reviewed paper stating this is
>> where?

> You've already been shown links to it.

The link you posted was to a puff-piece. It was /not/ a peer-reviewed
scientific paper.

It is /not/ evidence for your /supposition/ that

'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'

means

'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words)

--
Spike

In article <XnsAE077620AC9FF37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 00:04 21 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
> >
> >
> > Also you should remember, god knows you've had it explained to you
> > often enough,

> Bob's post about modelling has a troll-like quality about it. It's
> perfectly possible he remembers what's been explained but he has to
> ignore that to attempt another round of baiting

Alas, I came to the conclusion some time ago that Bob really does believe
the nonsense (non-science) he keeps spouting. In the past I've had many
quite polite and rational exchanges with him on topics that don't touch
upon his political beliefs.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 23/12/2021 09:12, Spike wrote:
>>
>> It's only 'peculiar' to irrational conspiracy theorists like you, to
>> everyone else it's just rational deduction from known facts.
>
> The link you posted was to a puff-piece. It was /not/ a peer-reviewed
> scientific paper.

How can you possibly claim that when clearly you haven't bothered to
read the paper, see below ...

> It is /not/ evidence for your /supposition/ that
> 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'
> means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words)
>
> Not even the Laotians are claiming that.

The Laotians? So clearly you haven't bothered to even read any of the
links either to the original material, or even just of the reporting of
it in plain non-scientific English, otherwise you'd certainly know that
it was French research. So let's turn a question that you are fond of
asking others back on yourself, how many papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its
origins have *YOU* even bothered to read even a little of, let alone
actually understood?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/12/2021 09:12, Spike wrote:
>
> On 22/12/2021 17:38, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 22/12/2021 10:16, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
>>> Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.
>>
>> LIAR!

[Dishonestly snipped material reinstated:]

It was you who first doubted other's, in particular my, qualifications,
only to discover that they're better than yours; well there's an obvious
answer to that, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the question,
don't use casting groundless doubts on the qualifications and
understanding of others to bolster a losing argument when yours are
obviously too poor to piss into the wind with. You created this scourge
for your back, and it's going be applied as long as you keep trolling here.

> You're quite a vulgar little person, aren't you.

Just calling a spade, a spade, and a liar, a liar.

>>>> That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
>>>> already existed in nature.
>>>
>>> And the authoritative, definitive, peer-reviewed paper stating this is
>>> where?
>>
>> You've already been shown links to it.
>
> The link you posted was to a puff-piece. It was /not/ a peer-reviewed
> scientific paper.

LIAR! As already proven, you haven't even read it. So let's turn a
question that you are fond of asking others back on yourself, how many
papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its origins have *YOU* even bothered to read
even a little of, let alone actually understood?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <599ed6d427bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <599e404af7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > This is a nothingburger.

> > Bob's MO.

> > Jim

> And there's Jim's - attack the person - again.

I lost count of how many times I carefully deboned your sour cherries or
gave you evidence, etc, etc. None of that changed your behaviour or
delusions. The above description fits your behaviour perfectly thoughout
years of that. Its an accurate description of your behaviour.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 23/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/12/2021 09:12, Spike wrote:

> So clearly you haven't bothered to even read any of the
> links either to the original material, or even just of the reporting of
> it in plain non-scientific English

In plain non-scientific English the brochure is /not/ evidence for your
/supposition/ that 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'
means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words).

One would hope that, as you demand *EVIDENCE* from others at every
set-back to the latest utterings of your media-driven world-view, you
would supply at least *ONE* peer-reviewed scientific paper published in
a quality journal. This 'paper' doesn't qualify. It's a puff-piece.

But since you take such an entrenched position on the matter, that can
only have stemmed from a *COMPLETE* study of *ALL* the scientific
literature on the topic. Please supply your literature search on the
subject.

>So let's turn a question that you are fond of
> asking others back on yourself, how many papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its
> origins have *YOU* even bothered to read even a little of, let alone
> actually understood?

Since I have posed that question to you already, several times in fact,
and received no answer to date, one can only suppose that you get your
embarrassing science, such as it is, from red-top newspapers.

--
Spike

On 23/12/2021 23:54, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/12/2021 09:12, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/12/2021 17:38, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 22/12/2021 10:16, Spike wrote:

>>>> Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
>>>> Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.

> It was you who first doubted other's, in particular my, qualifications,
> only to discover that they're better than yours; well there's an obvious
> answer to that, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the question,
> don't use casting groundless doubts on the qualifications and
> understanding of others to bolster a losing argument when yours are
> obviously too poor to piss into the wind with. You created this scourge
> for your back, and it's going be applied as long as you keep trolling here.

>> You're quite a vulgar little person, aren't you.

> LIAR! As already proven, you haven't even read it.

Only enough to realise that you wouldn't know a scientific paper if you
ever were unfortunate enough to stumble on one.

> So let's turn a
> question that you are fond of asking others back on yourself, how many
> papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its origins have *YOU* even bothered to read
> even a little of, let alone actually understood?

I'm waiting for you to publish your Literature Search. It'll be a hoot.

--
Spike

On 24/12/2021 11:55, Spike wrote:
>
> On 23/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> So clearly you haven't bothered to even read any of the
>> links either to the original material, or even just of the reporting of
>> it in plain non-scientific English
>
> In plain non-scientific English the brochure is /not/ evidence for your
> /supposition/ that 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'
> means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words).

Read it again, properly this time, the only difference between the
closest virus found in Laos and those that began the pandemic in Wuhan
is the FCS, a single mutation away ...

https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos

.... and to avoid you trying to deny it as a puff-piece, here's the
preprint paper itself, not that I think you have a snowball's chance in
hell of ever understanding it ...

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1

"Our findings therefore indicate that bat-borne SARS-CoV-2-like viruses
potentially infectious for humans circulate in Rhinolophus spp. in the
Indochinese peninsula."

And here again are the radio reports of the research including an
interview with a lead researcher:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
BBC Inside Science, 23/09/2021, 16:42-23:28
Origins of SARS-Cov-2

17:03 "A team from the Pasteur Institute, in Paris, investigating
bats in caves in northern Laos, have discovered that the bats in the
caves are infected with a coronavirus that's genetically almost
identical to the one that's causing covid in humans"

Further detail on same story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
Science In Action, 23/09/2021, 00:40-07:36
New Evidence For SARSCoV2's Origin In Bats

>> So let's turn a question that you are fond of
>> asking others back on yourself, how many papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its
>> origins have *YOU* even bothered to read even a little of, let alone
>> actually understood?
>
> Since I have posed that question to you already, several times in fact,
> and received no answer to date, one can only suppose that you get your
> embarrassing science, such as it is, from red-top newspapers.

As above, I get it from decent sources, including original scientific
papers, which, as this thread has clearly demonstrated, are clearly too
complicated to understand for someone who's only known enthusiasm,
though expertise even just in that unknown and therefore open to doubt,
is contemporary dance. How's Denialism By Dance coming on? Twisted a
real ankle yet, to match the metaphorical falling flat on your face that
you're doing in every post you make here?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/12/2021 11:56, Spike wrote:
>
> On 23/12/2021 23:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> So let's turn a
>> question that you are fond of asking others back on yourself, how many
>> papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its origins have *YOU* even bothered to read
>> even a little of, let alone actually understood?
>
> I'm waiting for you to publish your Literature Search. It'll be a hoot.

See other reply, loser.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/12/2021 17:41, Java Jive wrote:
> On 24/12/2021 11:55, Spike wrote:

>> In plain non-scientific English the brochure is /not/ evidence for your
>> /supposition/ that 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'
>> means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words).

> Read it again, properly this time, the only difference between the
> closest virus found in Laos and those that began the pandemic in Wuhan
> is the FCS, a single mutation away ...

> https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos

*EIGHT* out of the ten References are to the Institut Pasteur work. One
is to a vet school and one from the Laotians. IOW, it's not comprehensive.

> ... and to avoid you trying to deny it as a puff-piece, here's the
> preprint paper itself, not that I think you have a snowball's chance in
> hell of ever understanding it ...

> https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1

> "Our findings therefore indicate that bat-borne SARS-CoV-2-like viruses
> potentially infectious for humans circulate in Rhinolophus spp. in the
> Indochinese peninsula."

How much weaselling can you find in the claim that "SARS-CoV-2-related
viruses capable of infecting human cells discovered in bats in northern
Laos"?

But there's no weaselling here: "But the scientists showed that the
viruses do not have a furin cleavage site, as is found in SARS-CoV-2.
Furin is a protease that cleaves the spike protein, allowing the virus
membrane to fuse with the human cell membrane.[1] This cleavage site
plays a key role in mediating viral entry into respiratory epithelial
cells."

Plus: "The identification of these new coronaviruses opens up new
avenues for investigation into host-virus interactions and could improve
our understanding of the factors that led to the emergence of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus" which reads as "Gimme gimme gimme funding..."

> As above, I get it from decent sources,

....such as the BBC, the media, and anecdata.

> including original scientific
> papers, which, as this thread has clearly demonstrated

So far you've only referred to one limited paper. Where is the rest of
your comprehensive Literature Search?

> are clearly too
> complicated to understand for someone who's only known enthusiasm,
> though expertise even just in that unknown and therefore open to doubt,
> is contemporary dance. How's Denialism By Dance coming on? Twisted a
> real ankle yet, to match the metaphorical falling flat on your face that
> you're doing in every post you make here?

What a vulgar little man you are.

--
Spike