Skip to main content

CIA low-confidence belief

Image
By scooby

 https://apnews.com/article/covid-cia-trump-china-pandemic-lab-leak-9ab7e84c626fed68ca13c8d2e453dde1


WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA now believes the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated from a laboratory, according to an assessment released Saturday that points the finger at China

Comments

Anonymous said…
So what?
1/25/2025 8:04 PM
Anonymous said…
This comes about two years after the DOE had a classified report stating that they had a "low confidence" belief that it was a lab leak, according to CNN. But it could still be Bat Soup or undercooked Pangolin Patties.
1/25/2025 9:45 PM
Anonymous said…
So the FBI and now the CIA are leaning toward a lab leak. The timing is bit interesting.

The 8.04 pm poster is totally correct. It has no meaning and is utterly irrelevant...so what. That is the kind of masterful insight we all need.

I am just amazed sometimes what people will post. I never really believed
"to stupid to know you are stupid" but the internet sure proved that point is correct.

Dear 8.04pm, perhaps there is some hope, I am not sure, but before you post again..."so what" to this or anything you read, try and think for some time, just think, imagine some possibilities, some possible out comes, consider it like a story. Try that for week or two and if that does not work, that just try not to post anything again.
1/25/2025 11:28 PM
Anonymous said…
8:04 -- This means Fauci was negligent in approving funding for the projects in Wuhan on gain of function for coronavirus. Evidently, the lab had projects to take viruses that were harmless to humans and transform them into pathogens capable of creating a pandemic. It is good to recognize that this was probably the origin of the pandemic, because it will lessen the likelihood of it happening again in the future.

Fauci also received a pardon from Biden of course, so he will now be free to testify without taking the fifth. The pardon explicitly goes back to 2014 when he was put in charge of approving this type of dangerous research.
1/26/2025 11:33 AM
Anonymous said…

"Fauci also received a pardon from Biden of course, so he will now be free to testify without taking the fifth. The pardon explicitly goes back to 2014 when he was put in charge of approving this type of dangerous research."

I am not buying your Fox news conspiracies, that Fauci made this thing. He said under oath that they did fund gain of function. The pardon is because of crazies like you.
1/26/2025 7:49 PM
Anonymous said…
7:49 -- It's sort of Orwellian to argue about the exact wording, whether it was gain of function or not, or an "enhanced potential pandemic pathogen". As you know these terms have been constantly redefined anyways, just as Orwell would have predicted. And of course, the Chinese may have taken it upon themselves to exceed what was authorized in the grant proposals, perhaps they believed it was a safe line of research since we signed off on it.

Unfortunately it is an issue that it is so easy to get high-profile papers and thus a lot of grant funding, by creating deadly pathogens which is so very easy with modern technology.
1/27/2025 1:33 AM
Anonymous said…
11:28 -- I believe the FBI was always advocating a lab leak theory, while the CIA was agnostic, not expressing a belief one way or the other, previous to this. There was a story a while back that the CIA had pressured some of its analysts to reach that conclusion, which I think they denied:

https://www.science.org/content/article/cia-bribed-its-own-covid-19-origin-team-reject-lab-leak-theory-anonymous-whistleblower
1/27/2025 2:01 AM
Anonymous said…
Some people where trying to get Fauci to give a talk at Los Alamos.
1/27/2025 4:36 PM
Anonymous said…
The "so what" is that the "experts" have lost more credibility. That stain doesn't wash off.


1/27/2025 6:41 PM
Anonymous said…
The "so what" is that the "experts" have lost more credibility.

The only people that lost more credibility are the uneducated Fox viewers who fall for lies and conspiracy theories. I think I will stick to the experts.
1/27/2025 9:27 PM
Anonymous said…
9:27pm are you saying that 3 federal agencies are endorsing a conspiracy theory? Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
1/30/2025 3:35 AM
Anonymous said…
9:27 -- I agree with you of course, that RFK Jr sounds nutty. But we know there actually was a "conspiracy" i.e. a "scientific collaboration" to modify coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. A quick google search will turn up, that even Fauci does not view this as a so-called conspiracy theory, that is he does not rule out the possibility it came from the lab.
1/30/2025 9:26 AM
Anonymous said…
The important thing to remain aware of is that regardless of the cause, bat soup, lab leak, whatever, the dictatorship of China thought it far more important to try to protect its image than to keep it from spreading. Accordingly, it persecuted doctors that were trying to address the issue, even causing the death of one. Certainly it's useful to understand how it evolved, but don't lose sight of the fact that the Chinese dictatorship let it spread throughout the world.
1/30/2025 5:55 PM
Anonymous said…
"9:27pm are you saying that 3 federal agencies are endorsing a conspiracy theory? Sounds like a conspiracy theory."

Conspiracy theories are for uneducated Fox viewers. What is probably is happing is that these federal agencies are probably scared Trump is going to shut them down or fire people if they do not tow the line, so they are just saying low confidence in hope that Trump will leave them alone.


1/30/2025 9:15 PM
Anonymous said…
5:55 it isn't clear whether this was the "dictatorship" or decisions made by bureacrats or local or provincial officials.
2/02/2025 9:50 AM
Anonymous said…
Reasonable point, but consider that it's highly unlikely that those officials would do anything independently or that the dictatorship might not sanction. After all, their survival depends on their "good" behavior.
2/02/2025 8:54 PM
Anonymous said…
If CYA is the explanation for how 3 agencies came to similar views, then where are the other 14 that comprise the US intelligence community? Your argument isn't holding bat soup.
2/07/2025 9:07 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more