Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
China built a lab to study SARS and Ebola in Wuhan, and U.S. biosafety experts warned in 2017 that a virus could 'escape' the facility that's become key in fighting the outbreak.
The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is the only lab in China designated for studying dangerous pathogens like SARS and Ebola.
Ahead of its January 2018 opening, biosafety experts and scientists from the U.S. expressed concerns that a virus could escape the lab.
In 2004, a SARS virus 'leaked' from a lab in Beijing
Experts say the coronavirus that's infected more than 800 people mutated in animals and became capable of infecting humans at the Wuhan seafood market.
But a 2017 article warned of the unpredictability of lab animals that scientists at the Wuhan lab intended to inject with viruses>
China installed the first of a planned five to seven biolabs designed for maximum safety in Wuhan in 2017, for the purpose of studying the most high-risk pathogens, including the Ebola and the SARS viruses.
Tim Trevan, a Maryland biosafety consultant, told Nature that year, when the lab was on the cusp of opening, that he worried that China's culture could make the institute unsafe because 'structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important.'
In fact, the SARS virus had 'escaped' multiple times from a lab in Beijing, according to the Nature article.
The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is located about 20 miles away from the Huanan Seafood Market and some have wondered if the outbreak's epicenter is coincidental, but the scientific community currently believes that the virus mutated through and jumped to people through animal-human contact at the market.
China installed the first of a planned five to seven biolabs designed for maximum safety in Wuhan in 2017, for the purpose of studying the most high-risk pathogens, including the Ebola and the SARS viruses.
Tim Trevan, a Maryland biosafety consultant, told Nature that year, when the lab was on the cusp of opening, that he worried that China's culture could make the institute unsafe because 'structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important.'
In fact, the SARS virus had 'escaped' multiple times from a lab in Beijing, according to the Nature article.
The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is located about 20 miles away from the Huanan Seafood Market and some have wondered if the outbreak's epicenter is coincidental, but the scientific community currently believes that the virus mutated through and jumped to people through animal-human contact at the market.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7922379/Chinas-lab-studying-SARS-Ebola-Wuhan-outbreaks-center.html
The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is the only lab in China designated for studying dangerous pathogens like SARS and Ebola.
Ahead of its January 2018 opening, biosafety experts and scientists from the U.S. expressed concerns that a virus could escape the lab.
In 2004, a SARS virus 'leaked' from a lab in Beijing
Experts say the coronavirus that's infected more than 800 people mutated in animals and became capable of infecting humans at the Wuhan seafood market.
But a 2017 article warned of the unpredictability of lab animals that scientists at the Wuhan lab intended to inject with viruses>
China installed the first of a planned five to seven biolabs designed for maximum safety in Wuhan in 2017, for the purpose of studying the most high-risk pathogens, including the Ebola and the SARS viruses.
Tim Trevan, a Maryland biosafety consultant, told Nature that year, when the lab was on the cusp of opening, that he worried that China's culture could make the institute unsafe because 'structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important.'
In fact, the SARS virus had 'escaped' multiple times from a lab in Beijing, according to the Nature article.
The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is located about 20 miles away from the Huanan Seafood Market and some have wondered if the outbreak's epicenter is coincidental, but the scientific community currently believes that the virus mutated through and jumped to people through animal-human contact at the market.
China installed the first of a planned five to seven biolabs designed for maximum safety in Wuhan in 2017, for the purpose of studying the most high-risk pathogens, including the Ebola and the SARS viruses.
Tim Trevan, a Maryland biosafety consultant, told Nature that year, when the lab was on the cusp of opening, that he worried that China's culture could make the institute unsafe because 'structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important.'
In fact, the SARS virus had 'escaped' multiple times from a lab in Beijing, according to the Nature article.
The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is located about 20 miles away from the Huanan Seafood Market and some have wondered if the outbreak's epicenter is coincidental, but the scientific community currently believes that the virus mutated through and jumped to people through animal-human contact at the market.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7922379/Chinas-lab-studying-SARS-Ebola-Wuhan-outbreaks-center.html
So whom do we believe, the Daily Mail or the Chinese?
Tell us about the chinese stuffing pigs with antibiotics.
This will not end well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2020 11:27PM by Dave the Atheist.
This will not end well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2020 11:27PM by Dave the Atheist.
Antibiotics have no effect on viruses, for good or ill. Their overuse can create resistant bacteria. They do not create more virulent viruses.
The point is that a pandemic will originate in china.
Do you think China is the only country feeding antibiotics to livestock?
"'At this point there's no reason to harbor suspicions' that the facility had anything to do with the outbreak, besides being responsible for the crucial genome sequencing that lets doctors diagnose it, Rutgers University microbiologist Dr Richard Ebright told DailyMail.com."
That the Chinese facility is actually playing a positive role in this disaster seems important, no?
That the Chinese facility is actually playing a positive role in this disaster seems important, no?
Sure. But it's a stretch to insinuate that the Daily Mail and Rutgers University are Chinese agents.
Why not let the article speak for itself?
Why not let the article speak for itself?
And I don't trust the Chinese. All news coming out of China must square with the Party line, be it financial, political, social, or scientific. This is the government that gets western behemoths like Disney, Facebook, and Alphabet to bend the knee. Can you imagine a Chinese public health official admitting that the Biosafety Lab isn't as secure as it should be?
I hope I'm wrong. I'd feel better if 1st World specialists inspected the facility.
I hope I'm wrong. I'd feel better if 1st World specialists inspected the facility.
I don’t trust anyone anymore. Ha! Ha!
I don’t trust Lots Wife
I question the logic in your analysis. Your argument comprises three steps. They are
1) An article is written by people who relied exclusively on Chinese sources,
2) Chinese sources are unreliable, and
3) We should therefore assume the opposite of what the article said.
Only one of those three propositions--that Chinese sources are undependable--is correct.
The first proposition is false because, as one having read the article should know, the author cited western sources as well, including some that are critical of the Chinese.
The third proposition is wrong because if sources are unreliable you by definition can infer neither accuracy nor inaccuracy. All you can logically say is, "I will await more evidence."
If you trust First World experts, you should accept their assertions that the Chinese system is dangerous but that in this instance it appears to have performed a valuable service. Period. But you cannot reasonably say that because you dislike the Chinese sources, you are going to ignore independent sources that happen to coincide in part with the Chinese ones.
1) An article is written by people who relied exclusively on Chinese sources,
2) Chinese sources are unreliable, and
3) We should therefore assume the opposite of what the article said.
Only one of those three propositions--that Chinese sources are undependable--is correct.
The first proposition is false because, as one having read the article should know, the author cited western sources as well, including some that are critical of the Chinese.
The third proposition is wrong because if sources are unreliable you by definition can infer neither accuracy nor inaccuracy. All you can logically say is, "I will await more evidence."
If you trust First World experts, you should accept their assertions that the Chinese system is dangerous but that in this instance it appears to have performed a valuable service. Period. But you cannot reasonably say that because you dislike the Chinese sources, you are going to ignore independent sources that happen to coincide in part with the Chinese ones.
¿ did they died OPie ? ~
brb ~ avoiding chinese food resturants ~
(no racist) ~
brb ~ avoiding chinese food resturants ~
(no racist) ~