Claim by former MI6 head that coronavirus was Chinese invention is ‘spurious’ say experts

MI6 being the foreign intelligence bods.

It’s usually the anti-spy spies who go nuts though. That whole mindset of having to spend a career thinking that anyone – everyone – has been turned or was an enemy to start with leaking into a more general paranoia.

13 thoughts on “Odd”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    Who are thee experts who are so damned sure? Lots of the experts I listen to and read aren’t 100% certain either way.

    There’s a very good argument that it was innocent research that escaped in to the wild by accident and I find it the most plausible, but I’m still very much open to persuasion.

  2. “Spurious”? Or just premature.
    I wonder how much former heads of MI6 are told about ongoing ops.

  3. A weaponised virus? If you were going to do that, you’d have to be developing the vaccine/treatment along with the virus. Or deployment just comes back to bite you. In practise, it’s development of the remedy is the key to weaponisation. Doesn’t look like the Chinese were very far along with that, if this is the case.

  4. Given the Affair of the not-so-Deadly Doorknob very little the “intelligence” community says can or should be taken seriously.

  5. @Mr Ecks
    The intelligence community is drawn from the same pool of talent produces politicians & journalists.

  6. have seen some fairly;y interesting statistics that argue that the pattern of mutations the distinguish the COVID-19 virus from its presumed ancestor (RAT13 for short) are so skewed that they must be artificial. Cogently argued on a statistical basis. The theory is that this wasn’t a virus intended as a weapon but one “created” to study the ability of BCV’s (Beta Corona Viruses) to adapt to humans and cause a pandemic. The researchers added (in a “gain of function” test) a receptor that closely matches human ACE-2 receptors as that would be a prime pathway to infect humans. They also mentioned that the E Protein of the virus is essentially identical to the precursor, yet in 2-3 months in humans that protein has mutated (not in function, but the genetic code accumulates silent as well as non-silent mutations) to a significant degree; so that strongly suggests that the RAT-13 virus was the direct forbear and there was no intervening animal host, yet RAT-13 doesn’t infect humans at all well. So maybe RAT-13 was modified, artificial mutations induced in a detectable pattern in the main receptor gene to make it fit ACE-2 particularly well so it would look like an adaption, and the E Protein gene was overlooked and left unchanged.

    And then the Virus escaped from the lab, one way or another.

    It does seem that the Wet Market is not the source, but a spreading location, the first cluster if you like; and the actual initial infection occurred elsewhere.

    The Jury is still out and unless there is agreed statistical proof of the sort I mention above, we may never be sure because China is certainly not going to a admit fault.

  7. Dolores Cahill (Phd in virology and immunology was interviewed on a recent Delingpole podcast. She mentioned that some batches of the influenza vaccine had been contaminated with Covid-19. Well worth a listen.

  8. Of the 10,000 or so wet markets in SE Asia, the bat-derived corona viruse just happened to appear in the one wet market a few hundred yards from a lab which was genetically manipulating bat-derived corona viruses (We know it was, because a few months earlier, the people there were publishing papers on their research).

    So the coincidence is huge. Try Las Vegas, you will make millions.

    And that’s before you look at the genetic sequencing.
    And before you look at the guilt-ridden cover-up conducted by the CCP.

    With coincidence like that, the burden of proof is on the Wuhan Institute to prove it WASN’T them wot did it.

  9. I used to be on the Safety Committee of a Level 3 lab. I resigned because my knowledge of biology wasn’t remotely up to the task.

    But on lab safety in general – of course an escape is possible. Plausible even: incompetence, bravado, corruption, sheer bad luck, …

    Hell, insanity – I once came across someone who claimed he’d become immune to harm from lab reagents.

  10. @dearieme
    I’ve found that people working in dangerous environments constantly tends to either attract or create a very strange mindset and a sense of invulnerability in some that’s down right scary. If there is an accident they will brush it off as would never happen to them and near-misses tend to reinforce this not make them more cautious. The human mind is very adaptable at dealing with fear and rationalising/normalising it.
    It’s the old adage that wanting the job should disqualify you from it in the first place.
    I’m reminded of the point someone made about ice hockey goalies that the best of them are highly irrational as evolution has encouraged a very rational response to small hard objects coming towards us at speed is to avoid them, a goalies response is to do the opposite.

  11. Sunday:
    BBC News: A mink farm in Holland has had to slaughter all their Minks after they caught C-19

    This is the first documented case of Animal to Human transmission. Whut?

  12. There are three ways to form an opinion on a topic. The first is to throw darts at a dartboard. The odds of getting it right are therefore random chance. The second way is to be a layman and make possibly spurious connections with other topics on which one knows something. The odds here aren’t great either. The third way is to be an expert. Unfortunately with CV, the experts have relied on their previous accumulations of knowledge which have turned out to be so close to diametrically wrong that it beats all the laws of probability. As has been said, it’s what you think is right that ain’t so that’s so dangerous. It would have been far better with CV to banish all the experts to outer darkness and recruit some reasonably intelligent thinkers with tabulae rasae to think it out from basic logical principles.

  13. The problem is that we cannot be certain that the Chinese are lying although they usually lie because they sometimes, albeit rarely, tell the truth: so we just do not know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *