FBI director says COVID pandemic 'most likely' originated from Chinese lab

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-director-says-covid-pandemic-most-likely-originated-chinese-lab

There you'all go. All those who thought Covid-19 came about naturally are most likely wrong and took the side of the flat-earthers. The evidence of the lab-leak was clear very early on however many in the press and government lied for political reasons. Next, we'll find out that all that silly lockdown stuff was for naught.

 

'most likely' - I think most of us agree

"Next, we'll find out that all that silly lockdown stuff was for naught."

some say Trump wanted the virus to spread and the reason Trump shutdown the economy is that he knew the economy was failing, and the only way for him to inject trillions into the mega corps was to use the virus crisis to do so, if that did not work, he would blame it on the virus, win\win either way as far as Trump was concerned

 

Just more psuedo government bull-shit to sustain the "illusion" for the sheep, of the COVID-19 pandemic, that wasn't.

 

Your post belongs here

----> http://politicalforum.com/index.php?forums/viral-biological.119/

 

There was no "detection" of 2019-nCoV as claimed by the clowns at the WHO and all the subsequent G-20 puppets.

All that was ever established was their PSYOPS of analytical specificity for their whole-cloth crafted assay to detect selected target computer model sequences that was an in-vitro molecular reaction experiment from a synthetic nucleic acid technology
that does not require the existence of their CON-cocted pseudo virus.

 

There is no logical connecting-- if you are trying to present yourself as that type of rational thinker-- between the source of the pandemic, most likely, having been the Wuhan lab, and (so, therefore) the lockdowns probably having been "for naught." The two propositions are very different, and in no way related.

I, by the way, have always thought that the Chinese lab seemed the most likely source. Nevertheless, I also recognize that, first, just because the FBI now concurs with my opinion, doesn't mean that I was, necessarily, correct. Secondly, I can see why, without compelling proof, at that point, our government would not want to be pointing the finger, possibly in error, at China. Does that not make sense to you, to wait until the evidence is in, before launching accusations?

 

~ I'm so glad that the FBI is on top of this. Now I sleep better ...

 

Wray knew it all the time, he just decided to wait to say something until the political damage to Democrats would be minimal.

 

I think what needs to be addressed is the way people called those who believed Covid came from a Chinese lab as racist and conspiracy theorists. They were ridiculed by the media and politicians. Instead of allowing an open discussion people who believed the virus came from a Chinese lab were shutdown and told they were spreading misinformation. Their free speech was trampled on. Will those who condemned the folks who believed the virus came from a Chinese lab apologize for their behavior? I doubt it. The report from the Energy Department was leaked which tell me our government wanted to keep this from the public. Now I see Biden wants to take credit for the investigation because it came out to the public. Sad.

 

The report was leaked. Both the Biden administration and Wray are being forced to come forward and talk about the origins of the virus. I doubt they would have if it hadn't come out. This is good. Even if China refuses to cooperate they can't hide the money trail from those who benefitted from the research. We're learning the US used taxpayer money to fund the research. How high up did this approval go? We can start with the highest paid government employee Fauci and go from there.

 

Saying it leaked from the lab wasn't racist. Calling it the China virus was - say it wasn't, i'm don't care enough to argue with you.

Any of us who said it came from the lab, or that it came from a bat were spreading misinformation, because we are just idiots making guesses on the internet.

 

Americans call it the Vietnam War. Are you calling people out for that? It's called Covid 19 because that is the year it was discovered. So if a virus originated in China why is it racist to call it that?

 

Has that consideration stopped this administration of accusing China of spying on us (the balloon that was shot down after it crossed the country comes to mind) in the past? To accuse the market place of being the source of covid was based on little actual evidence. Why doesn't that matter?

 

Could somebody please explain to me just why I am supposed to place credence in the statements of known liars?

 

You make some good points. No one called me "racist" when I laid out my arguments, but my tone tends to come across as very logical, more than emotional. This includes, not generally using language that sounds "racist." I'm sure there were people accusing China, who were called "racist," but I would not be surprised if, in their comments, there often was other language that suggested a racist attitude, or posture towards the Chinese, or towards Asians, in general. Do you follow, what I'm saying? IOW, just starting off, by calling Covid "the China virus," a speaker can give others the impression of non-objectivity, and of negative bias.

Let me give you a more exaggerated example, just for demonstrating the principle (not to suggest that this was the exact language used). If someone said, "That China-virus was a plot by those slanty-eyed bastards to attack us with biological weapons, after they'd already developed a vaccine;" or "This was probably a plan to sell vaccines to the world; you can't trust the Chinese;" the odds of the accuser sounding racist, are much greater; it would not be merely the fact that one was pointing to the amazing coincidence, of this type of research going on, in the same spot in which the pandemic started. Note, this is just the citing of facts, which themselves, suggest a logical conclusion. But once someone starts extrapolating, attributing motives, which they have no basis for knowing, their charges will be invested with a patina of racial prejudice.

Though, as I'd said, you do have a point, that those who like to toe the official line, did try to redirect my thinking. I think, though, this is just a feature of human society: that some will be more accepting of an "authoritative" view, of leaders. Ironically, it has traditionally been Conservatives who have been more supportive of the official line, and Liberals who have been more likely to question it. I can only suggest, that the way you question it, is going to affect the way that your points will be interpreted-- as either well-reasoned, or else as wild, unsupported conspiracy theories.

Lastly, I will reiterate that, though I agree it is important to know the truth, and to investigate, I don't know that people tossing around baseless speculations, gets anything done, or is not actually counter-productive, to conducting a legitimate investigation. Also, such speculation, if you were not aware of it, fuels anti-Asian violence against American citizens. Any responsible American President, therefore, is going to want to tamp down, that inflammatory rhetoric, while insuring the proper investigative bodies, go about their analytic work.

 

There are a couple of separate pieces, in the argument, above. As to the balloon: it wasn't until we could see that its path was leading over all our missile sites, before we charged the Chinese government, with sending a spy balloon. It was, in fact, those on the Right who had complained that Biden had waited, for evidence of this, rather than shooting down the first balloon, when it was still off the coast of Alaska.

As to the marketplace, official theory: this site, I believe has been at least the suspected source, of the spread of past, animal-to-human pathogens. I concede, I might be mistaken, about that. But the official theory, as I'd said, understandably would not want to prematurely accuse a foreign nation, without evidence. So that would only leave natural transmission, which would mean either some random event, out in the country, or in that marketplace, where both people and animals, were concentrated. So, barring the tossing out of theories that consign blame to another nation, without any specific proof, the market place scenario is not an unreasonable one (even though I, myself, saw the lab as more probably suspect). Even now, as I understand, a significant part of the reason that our FBI suspects a Wuhan lab "leakage," is not hard evidence of this, but rather their reading of the closed way that China handled things, not allowing access to international investigators. So their case, we could say, is largely circumstantial, still.

 

Your post has tunnel vision. Think more along the lines of why the FBI director is saying this now.

Your weasel words make this entire part meaningless.

Since when has it stopped governments before?

What compelling proof did the government find in the last month which caused the FBI director to announce this?

 

It's nice that you are admitting that about yourself.

 

~ The only reason that anything truthful is coming out about the Covid-19 debacle from the USA government "authorities " is because other countries are disclosing their own findings — reported by independent journalists .
Expect more revelations as time goes by ...

• There is no news — only "bombshells."​

 

How could I possibly expect to know Chris Wray's thinking? But, I suppose, you do know the reason behind the timing? Well, don't leave us all, in suspense.

None, of which I am aware. Maybe there is some relationship to the spy balloon incident, and China's rhetoric/footing towards the U.S., turning more icy; though this is impossible to know.

Your stupid words make this entire part meaningless--
you see how little it proves, and how easy it is, to use words incorrectly?

Just because you misinterpret something, doesn't mean it must have contained "weasel words." Is that supposed to mean that I had been hiding or disguising something? Because I hadn't been.

I had been letting you know of my original disposition towards the possibilities; taking some credit, for being in the "most likely" category; but also pointing out, that the FBI director's words had been unambiguously less than definitive. I thought this worthwhile, because you'd seemed to be acting as if his calling this, the most likely source, was equivalent to his saying that they knew this had been the source (which it was not).

So, I would be curious to know what you really had meant. I am no expert on "weasel words" but it seems to me it should have something to do with being surreptitious, or sneaky which, again, would not apply to what I'd written. I might guess that you were trying to say that I had been making one of my assertions, weakly-- but that is certainly not what weasel would imply: they are (excluding insects) one of the fiercest of animal families.
So, if that'd been what you had meant to imply-- it was certainly a weasely way, of going about saying it.

 

Facts are not based on most likely. The lab theory is just that, a theory.

 

Are you suggesting that analysis you like starts with a conclusion and then offers logic tortured to the point that the approved conclusion is reached? That only questions approved by the authorities shall be permitted?

 

The part that gets me is that we are now supposed to believe that DOE has particular insight regarding what HHS and Fauci were doing.

Here is another perspective: Why is the Covid-19 lab leak theory back in the headlines? — RT World News

Sort of related, for the thinking person: Did We Just Start a Revolution? - LewRockwell

 

That, is not a logically-deduced conclusion, from my post. You have extrapolated from it, and then speculate and make unwarranted assumptions, from that extrapolation. A good example, of how one goes off in the wrong direction, half-cocked.

Though you at least do, nominally, pose your theory as a question, it is not very well hidden, that this is your presumption of what I mean, and that you are asking more rhetorically, in confidence of your own correctness, than in a purely inquisitive tone. Your use of such colorful descriptions, as of my logic being "tortured," is a dead give-away, of your attitude.

To start with, you do not even seem to recognize a difference between "analysis," and speculation. While, of course, a little speculation can enter into an analysis, that is a predominantly fact-centered process. We, in the public, had less than an ample amount of hard data, to "analyze." So, what most were doing was just speculating, into which was added, a touch of analysis.

Another vast difference between these two, are the varying ways the two should be presented: something that is mostly speculation, should not be presented as a statement of fact, or used to accuse; yet this is precisely the way, many treated their own, and others', speculations, rather than just musing over them, as possibilities, or as posing them, calmly, merely as "questions," directed toward "authorities."

I am not sure where you got the idea, that I start from a conclusion. That is nowhere written, in my post. I had pointed out the unlikely coincidence, of a Covid pandemic beginning, in the very area where there was a lab, conducting research on just such a possibility occurring, and using just that same virus, in their research. Here, it is the two facts, which suggest the conclusion, not the other way around.

 

I merely posed questions to you. As I suspected, you choose not to answer them.