"The Department of Energy. Take a moment. Breath that in. Let it sit with you for a moment.

Exactly what expertise do they have in biological studies? Bio labs? Just anything connected to this?"

You ought to do some actual digging before posting something like this, imo.

Now I'm going to copy and past from another post, so all the weenies who accuse me of doing that, go right ahead. Nothing different needs to be said in this post.

The department of energy runs 17 of the most critical research labs in our country, so they are ideally suited to make this type of determination.

Check out the two URLs, and the quote from the article from the second URL:

https://www.energy.gov/national-laboratories

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-energy-department-lab-investigating-covid-knows-what-its-talking-about/

"Why would the U.S. Department of Energy be weighing in on an investigation into the origins of Covid-19? The short answer is because the Energy Department has a special division that, as part of its mission to track and mitigate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, specializes in the study of biological weapons such as viruses."

You desperately want to cling to lefts debunked narrative. A novel Corona virus appeared in a city where there’s a lab that experiments with novel Corona viruses. No that’s not it. 😂

Yet the FBI and energy Department came to a similar conclusion that any one with half a brain could figure out with simple common sense. stay the course no matter what never admit you were wrong and screeched loudly how wrong you were.

Actually, they did come to a similar conclusion, but it's not the one you want it to be.

The FBI came to a Moderate Confidence. Which means they have a quality source BUT what the source is telling them cannot be proven.

The other 4 Intel Agencies say Low Confidence. That means they have low quality sources, and what the sources are telling them cannot be proven.

You've got 4 "Probably Not" and 1 "Maybe, I don't know." for lab origin.

And if the Energy report isn't already one of the 4, it is now. And that takes it to 5 Probably Nots and 1 Maybe.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

But you're all in on Lab Grown despite there being no credible evidence and the intel community saying "Probably not."

So, if you think the Department of Energy and the FBI is confirming lab origin, you have failed the half a brain + common sense test.

The fact that you and others demanded that saying it came from Wuhan could not even be suggested much less investigated ensured that we will never know exactly what happened. If we could China and her apologists would be sanctioned or jailed. That doesn’t mean we can’t piece it together and the pieces all say the Wuhan institute of Virology was the source of the leak with many provable pieces pointing to it. Your decision to stick to your narrative is proof of your failure of common sense.

No one said that it couldn't be said it came from Wuhan.

What we said is "Don't call it the Wuhan Flu."

There's a big difference between those 2 things.

And they can piece together where it came from in Wuhan. The facts and data point to the market in Wuhan.

I get that you're doubled down on a lab leak, and thus will not look at all the information and data that says that's not it, but that's not it.

Here's some science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

There's a nice map showing the center of the December infections. They're all clustered around the market. The January and February infections are diffused throughout the city. They even account for it starting somewhere else and they keep coming back ot the same point in their data.

The same market.

Where's the lab?

Literally across the river on the other side of town.

Facts matter. Data matters. Your feelings are not facts.

The facts and data do not point to it being a lab leak.

Facts? You mean like the transmissibility to jump species in the manner they did hasn’t occurred by that type of virus in nature? Or genetic markers indicate it’s not a totally natural virus? The fact the wet market theory is also listed as low confidence? The only theory with anything more than low confidence is the FBI report stating moderate confidence that it came from a lab.

I know you must protect your feelings and cling to the narrative at all costs in order to shield from shame and reproach that is richly deserved by all who denounced any questioning of the left and Fauci’s narrative. It’s pathetic but understandable weakness.

Jump species by that type never before?

Pony up the science that supports this.

Because this science says that SARS-COV-1 from 2002 came from bats:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7837611/

This science says that there are 7 known sars-cov style viruses that have infected humans, and all 7 have zoonotic origins. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/22221751.2020.1827984

And this science says the first sars in 2002 came from bats. And the MERS in 2012 came from camels. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7756848/

And your claim that genetic markers indicate that it's not natural? Again, bring the science.

Because this science says that the 2 lineages are clearly from zoological origins, and not a lab leak (because a leak would have only 1 lineage). https://virological.org/t/early-appearance-of-two-distinct-genomic-lineages-of-sars-cov-2-in-different-wuhan-wildlife-markets-suggests-sars-cov-2-has-a-natural-origin/691

Here's an easy to read article about it: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02519-1

All but 1 of the intel agencies say Low Confidence on covid coming from a lab. The FBI says Moderate.

Let's review: Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.

So the 1 agency has 1 source that is a credible source. BUT what that source says can't be verified or confirmed.

The best thing you have is the FBI saying, "well, this one guy we know says it's lab leaked, but we can't prove any of it."

But all the other Intel agencies are saying, "shady sources and we can't verify any of it."

Science is coming up with actual data that says it's zoological.

Facts and data matter, Bluessoul. All you have been presenting are your feelings (which are still not facts).

Because they iterated that something could happen doesn’t mean it did or is even likely. It displays a realistic admission of possibilities. Something the narrative you support lacks. I understand you have to defend the narrative at all costs or your world falls apart. I understand that the low confidence version of events you support is the only possibility that could have happened in your mind.

The zoological origin hypothesis has data that builds to a conclusion. There are 2 lineages. The first infections were physically around the area of wild animal markets. The following infections were diffused through the city.

The lab origin hypothesis has 1 data point. That a specific sequence is commonly used in gain-of-function experiments. and that's it. It stops there. It admits that this sequence appears on the wild. It is rare, but it does happen. It DOES NOT provide data to prove that this sequence could only happen in a lab. It DOES NOT show infections physically near the lab (they literally happen across town from the lab).

A lab leak would have a single lineage. The single leak. The infected worker would carry it to where they go out for lunch. Their friends and family would be in the first wave of infections. There would be evidence of a Patient 0.

There is none.

So what happened to SARS-COV-1? It essentially disappeared. Why? How about MERS? It hasn’t become a worldwide pandemic either.

They were zoonotic and yet they didn’t spread like wildfire or anywhere near the same as Covid. Because though they jumped specials their transmissibility among humans was not enhanced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9658851/Genome-sequencing-certainly-proves-COVID-deliberately-lab-experts-claim.html

My facts don’t align with yours or those who sought to stifle debate and ridicule anyone who questioned the lefts’ narrative. You can willfully deny reality but the reality is what you claimed was confirmed science that couldn’t be questioned was wrong again. Just like with the efficacy of the vaccine to stop the spread or be superior to natural
Immunity. Arrogantly wrong on every count.

Those are good questions. Why didn't those 2 previous versions of covid turn into pandemics?

You should go look for answers (real answers, with science and not fantasy made-up answers based on conspiracies).

Now, as to what you linked from the 2 dudes.

That's an opinion. Not science. It contains 1 point of data.

They claim that the sequence CGG-CGG has never appeared in the wild before. And that it only appears rarely in lab grown viruses.

How do we know that? What evidence do they have that this is the case?

They present none.

They even go on to say, and I quote, "Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations."

This contains 1 fact, and then it immediately undermines that fact with another fact that it could have happened randomly in nature.

Once again, you begin with a premise "the covid virus was grown in a lab" and only accept things that support that premise.

You completely missed the key point in my reply. I quoted you, as I will again:

"The Department of Energy. Take a moment. Breath that in. Let it sit with you for a moment.".

So I was mostly pointing out your ignorance in making it sound like the dept of energy had no business making the assessment, not what the assessment was. You were quite ignorant about why the dept of energy would even be involved. Nothing wrong with that though. I didn't know about it either...

... until I checked, which is what I suggested you should do before posting something like that.

did you just go to CNN for an “unbiased source”??

Did I say unbiased?

I said WSJ is behind a paywall and CNN is covering the story and used that so anyone could view it.

ahh i misread
I thought you said wsj was getting paid to lie about stuff
which would make it similar to CNN