jimnyc
08-28-2021, 02:52 PM
Did anyone expect any different?
This just confirms to me what I think I already know - this came from the lab in Wuhan. So much information has come out already.
---
Summary of coronavirus origin investigation: Virus not engineered but could have spread naturally or from a lab
The Office of Director of National Intelligence has released an unclassified summary of their 90-day review on the origin of the coronavirus. The two page summary doesn’t offer any details about the underlying evidence only where the various elements of the Intelligence Community currently stand on the origin question. The statement the summary seems to be highlighting is that the IC agrees the coronavirus was not engineered as a bioweapon and that China had no foreknowledge of the virus.
The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged.
It’s a little unclear what that is meant to convey but I think the point is simply that there’s agreement China didn’t engineer this and then plan its release. I don’t think too many people were suggesting that as a likely possibility. In fact, claiming that talk of a lab leak was tantamount to talk of an engineered virus was one the main ways the lab leak theory was dismissed last year.
The IC still isn’t in agreement about how the virus originated, though a plurality of “IC elements” think it was natural transfer:
Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
Rest - https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2021/08/27/summary-of-coronavirus-origin-investigation-virus-not-engineered-but-could-have-spread-naturally-or-from-a-lab-n412096
This just confirms to me what I think I already know - this came from the lab in Wuhan. So much information has come out already.
---
Summary of coronavirus origin investigation: Virus not engineered but could have spread naturally or from a lab
The Office of Director of National Intelligence has released an unclassified summary of their 90-day review on the origin of the coronavirus. The two page summary doesn’t offer any details about the underlying evidence only where the various elements of the Intelligence Community currently stand on the origin question. The statement the summary seems to be highlighting is that the IC agrees the coronavirus was not engineered as a bioweapon and that China had no foreknowledge of the virus.
The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged.
It’s a little unclear what that is meant to convey but I think the point is simply that there’s agreement China didn’t engineer this and then plan its release. I don’t think too many people were suggesting that as a likely possibility. In fact, claiming that talk of a lab leak was tantamount to talk of an engineered virus was one the main ways the lab leak theory was dismissed last year.
The IC still isn’t in agreement about how the virus originated, though a plurality of “IC elements” think it was natural transfer:
Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
Rest - https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2021/08/27/summary-of-coronavirus-origin-investigation-virus-not-engineered-but-could-have-spread-naturally-or-from-a-lab-n412096