Post removed

[intrepidity]

3. Can you point to the specific lie you are referring to

in the quote from the OP, please? Thank you.

[Me.]

2. Why Wouldn't Be Able To Discuss It

If we want to and that is the key

[intrepidity]

4. OK, that's an interesting point

I understand that many people do not want to discuss it. What I wonder about is their reasons. For example, some people may just have no interest in the topic--that's perfectly reasonable. But if there are other reasons that are preventing discussion, that in and of itself, is worth discussing. JMHO. Thanks for replying

[Me.]

5. But If They Have Reasons Preventing DIscussion

THen why will they?...

[Demsrule86]

6. You know perfectly well these Trumper talking points...and for the record CBS is a rightie channel

now. Scott Gottlieb worked for Trump and is still on amiable terms with him...they are trying to shift the blame from Trump to the Chinese or anyone else....but it is all Trumps. As I said before this is a right wing talking points told by a Trumper. And it should not be discussed here period.Why would we listen to one Trumper word?

"Gottlieb served as FDA commissioner under Trump for about two years before resigning in March 2019, citing a desire to spend more time with his family in Connecticut and parting ways with Trump on amicable terms". (from google search)

[Phoenix61]

8. No one is "preventing discussion."

There just isn’t any interest in conjecture that has no scientific basis.

[andym]

7. Note that no serious scientst is stating that SARS-COV2 was engineered

rather it looks like the virus went through animal intermediates and mutated "naturally." Whether that was in the countryside somewhere or a lab seems to be the question. The most likely occurrence is in the wild or on large farms because there are so many more animal hosts to interact with each other than in the confined spaces of a lab. Numbers count when it comes to evolution because more variation is possible. It's the same reason why we need to keep the numbers iof infected humans minimized beyond the obvious tragedies that ensue-- a new mutant could arise that is resistant to the best vaccines.

[intrepidity]

9. I personally do not believe it was engineered,

because if it were, then we are fully into conspiracy theory territory, and I have no interest whatsoever to venture there--despite the numerous accusations here to the contrary!

That said, I will read the literature on the subject. Here is one recent publication that describes how it may be scientifically possible which is a far cry from actually stating that this indeed happened.

I'm reluctant to even include the reference below; that alone is a very sad, very chilling reminder of how politically charged this subject has become; which is unfortunate, because I'd be interested in hearing a qualified scientific discussion on the questions raised in this paper.

[Note that it is published in a journal called Bioessays because the only way someone could post a scientific research article on this would be if they actually performed the described experiments, which they clearly did NOT do.]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33200842/

The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin: SARS-COV-2 chimeric structure and furin cleavage site might be the result of genetic manipulation

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2's origin is still controversial. Genomic analyses show SARS-CoV-2 likely to be chimeric, most of its sequence closest to bat CoV RaTG13, whereas its receptor binding domain (RBD) is almost identical to that of a pangolin CoV. Chimeric viruses can arise via natural recombination or human intervention. The furin cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 confers to the virus the ability to cross species and tissue barriers, but was previously unseen in other SARS-like CoVs. Might genetic manipulations have been performed in order to evaluate pangolins as possible intermediate hosts for bat-derived CoVs that were originally unable to bind to human receptors? Both cleavage site and specific RBD could result from site-directed mutagenesis, a procedure that does not leave a trace. Considering the devastating impact of SARS-CoV-2 and importance of preventing future pandemics, researchers have a responsibility to carry out a thorough analysis of all possible SARS-CoV-2 origins.

[andym]

10. As you might expect, this paper has already generated scientific replies in the literature

Interesting paper-- at least one group of scientists have taken time to publish a critique of this paper:

This one is worth reading:
There is no evidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin (https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240)
Alexander Tyshkovskiy Alexander Y. Panchin

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000325
Abstract
The origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is the subject of many hypotheses. One of them, proposed by Segreto and Deigin, assumes artificial chimeric construction of SARS‐CoV‐2 from a backbone of RaTG13‐like CoV and receptor binding domain (RBD) of a pangolin MP789‐like CoV, followed by serial cell or animal passage. Here we show that this hypothesis relies on incorrect or weak assumptions, and does not agree with the results of comparative genomics analysis. The genetic divergence between SARS‐CoV‐2 and both its proposed ancestors is too high to have accumulated in a lab, given the timeframe of several years. Furthermore, comparative analysis of S‐protein gene sequences suggests that the RBD of SARS‐CoV‐2 probably represents an ancestral non‐recombinant variant. These and other arguments significantly weaken the hypothesis of a laboratory origin for SARS‐CoV‐2, while the hypothesis of a natural origin is consistent with all available genetic and experimental data.