Covid-19 likely to be man made

mcsean2163 · 18-01-2021 8:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

You've dodged the question I asked.

Their conclusion is that they believe the laboratory-based scenario is implausible.
Do you agree that this conclusion is a valid one?
Do you agree with this conclusion?

Please just give a straight answer to this question. There really isn't a need for all of this dancing and dodging.

In the midst of the global COVID-19 public-health emergency, it is reasonable to wonder why the origins of the pandemic matter. Detailed understanding of how an animal virus jumped species boundaries to infect humans so productively will help in the prevention of future zoonotic events. For example, if SARS-CoV-2 pre-adapted in another animal species, then there is the risk of future re-emergence events. In contrast, if the adaptive process occurred in humans, then even if repeated zoonotic transfers occur, they are unlikely to take off without the same series of mutations. In addition, identifying the closest viral relatives of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in animals will greatly assist studies of viral function. Indeed, the availability of the RaTG13 bat sequence helped reveal key RBD mutations and the polybasic cleavage site.

The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses. It would also be helpful to obtain more genetic and functional data about SARS-CoV-2, including animal studies. The identification of a potential intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2, as well as sequencing of the virus from very early cases, would similarly be highly informative. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 originated via natural selection, the ongoing surveillance of pneumonia in humans and other animals is clearly of utmost importance.

As safesurfer has said, they make a very strong statement and then row back.

It's like saying, "the person is 100% guilty as long as they're not innocent".

I agree that they have done considerable research proving that the virus was not manmade, unless evidence shows it is manmade. I have done a lot of commercial reports and would be destroyed if I tried to issue something like that. It's astonishing the peer review process allowed a strong statement to be issued and retracted in the conclusion.

Why do you think such a conclusion was allowed to be published? Does the content convince you more that it does the authors?

mcsean2163 · 18-01-2021 8:37pm

I have to say the more I read the more shocked I am this is published in nature.

Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise.

Their argument seems to center on the idea that a manmade virus would be better designed. Because the design is not optimum it cannot be manmade and thus a bunch of probabilities give certainty of which they are not certain. Published in nature??

I'll have to read it again as the argument that probability yields certainty is simply mathematically not true. Any higher leaving certificate student knows this.

I did medical research coming from an engineering background and was shocked by how far behind the technology was by cannot get my head around how this got published in a prestige journal.

King Mob · 18-01-2021 10:48pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t mean to misrepresent you.

Yet you keep doing it while also continually ignoring my questions.
You aren't engaging honestly.

King Mob · 18-01-2021 10:51pm

mcsean2163 wrote: »

.
Why do you think such a conclusion was allowed to be published? Does the content convince you more that it does the authors?

I think it was published because it's an entirely valid conclusion that you are misrepresenting and misinterpreting.

Why do you think it was published when you believe it's conclusion is invalid?
Is the paper now part of the conspiracy?

SafeSurfer · 18-01-2021 11:02pm

King Mob wrote: »

I think it was published because it's an entirely valid conclusion that you are misrepresenting and misinterpreting.

Why do you think it was published when you believe it's conclusion is invalid?
Is the paper now part of the conspiracy?

Most scientific papers are false.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

King Mob · 18-01-2021 11:10pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Most scientific papers are false.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Ok. So any scientific papers you don't like and don't want to accept are false.

We are now firmly in conspiracy theory territory.

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 1:10am

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So any scientific papers you don't like and don't want to accept are false.

We are now firmly in conspiracy theory territory.

Funniest post ever.

You are dismissing a scientific paper that postulates that most scientific papers are false AND decrying entry into conspiracy territory. In the Conspiracy Forum.

The replication crisis is a real thing. You can look it up if you don’t believe me.

Have a look at “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” by John Ioannidis.

mcsean2163 · 19-01-2021 1:29am

King Mob wrote: »

I think it was published because it's an entirely valid conclusion that you are misrepresenting and misinterpreting.

Why do you think it was published when you believe it's conclusion is invalid?
Is the paper now part of the conspiracy?

The conclusion is an assertion that is retracted. My guess is that in the peer review they insisted on a caveat. It's very early in the Pandemic so maybe that's why it got through but it's a good question.

I was working with a journal editor so it would be a good question for that person.

Actually, the stuff we were working on never really went anywhere but he got published and it was a refutation of a covid19 assertion that was factually incorrect and as far as I can see he only got published because he was an editor and followed due process. The other supporting wrong papers weren't retracted.

So anyway, that's my guess.

I think a new thread would be good that explores the different theories.

King Mob · 19-01-2021 1:45am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Funniest post ever.

You are dismissing a scientific paper that postulates that most scientific papers are false AND decrying entry into conspiracy territory. In the Conspiracy Forum.

The replication crisis is a real thing. You can look it up if you don’t believe me.

Have a look at “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” by John Ioannidis.

Ok. In this case, does it mean that all of the papers you said were being suppressed are also false?

How did you determine that this paper in question is false and invalid?
What specifically lead them to their false conclusion?

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 2:10am

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. In this case, does it mean that all of the papers you said were being suppressed are also false?

How did you determine that this paper in question is false and invalid?
What specifically lead them to their false conclusion?

I said that information, data was being suppressed.

You keep asserting that the ONLY evidence for the lab origin hypothesis is that there was a lab nearby. That is simply untrue. The lab origin hypothesis explains a lot. Have a look at the lengths the Chinese are going to to control the narrative. They have been desperately searching for the missing zoonotic origin link for over a year and come up with zilch.
There were 2 leaks of SARS from a Beijing lab after the sars pandemic. The Wuhan lab removed all its previously online available coronavirus research shortly after the outbreak.
The most similar virus to COVID-19 was being studied and manipulated in the Wuhan lab. How do we know there wasn’t an even more similar virus or the virus itself in the lab?
We know that traces of lab manipulation of viruses can be impossible to detect.

King Mob · 19-01-2021 2:45am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I said that information, data was being suppressed.

Ok. So then no studies or papers are being supressed?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You keep asserting that the ONLY evidence for the lab origin hypothesis is that there was a lab nearby.

If there is scientific evidence you aren't supplying.
You are only supplying suppositions and speculation which are tantamount to "there was a lab nearby".

On the other hand I have supplied several scientific studies that have been peer review that support the idea of a animal origin.
Your response to is to claim that all scientific papers are invalid.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

They have been desperately searching for the missing zoonotic origin link for over a year and come up with zilch.

But that's not true.
I've already posted scientific studies that have passed peer review that show otherwise.

It's very hypocritical for you to say I'm denying evidence while you then turn around and actually do it.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

We know that traces of lab manipulation of viruses can be impossible to detect.

And again, this is a case of special pleading that fails on several levels.
Firstly the study I've posted directly states that it can be detected.
Secondly a lot of your preferred theory hinges on people claiming that they found or see such evidence.
Thirdly, if the evidence was undetectable, then it doesn't fit with the claims that the Chinese government is attempting to hide something. If it's undetectable, why hide it to the point that you're giving the game away in your attempts to hide it?

King Mob · 19-01-2021 2:47am

mcsean2163 wrote: »

The conclusion is an assertion that is retracted. My guess is...

The conclusion is not retracted.
That is a very bizarre interpretation of what was written.
The rest of your post is baseless speculation.

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 3:14am

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So then no studies or papers are being supressed?

If there is scientific evidence you aren't supplying.
You are only supplying suppositions and speculation which are tantamount to "there was a lab nearby".

On the other hand I have supplied several scientific studies that have been peer review that support the idea of a animal origin.
Your response to is to claim that all scientific papers are invalid.

But that's not true.
I've already posted scientific studies that have passed peer review that show otherwise.

It's very hypocritical for you to say I'm denying evidence while you then turn around and actually do it.

And again, this is a case of special pleading that fails on several levels.
Firstly the study I've posted directly states that it can be detected.
Secondly a lot of your preferred theory hinges on people claiming that they found or see such evidence.
Thirdly, if the evidence was undetectable, then it doesn't fit with the claims that the Chinese government is attempting to hide something. If it's undetectable, why hide it to the point that you're giving the game away in your attempts to hide it?

Now you are deliberately misrepresenting me and ignoring the points raised.

Studies are being suppressed by the Chinese government.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/11/china-clamping-down-on-coronavirus-research-deleted-pages-suggest

Nowhere did I claim that “all scientific papers are invalid” as you claim. I merely pointed out the fact that over half of scientific papers are false. You are pinning your entire argument on a peer reviewed paper which leaves the lab leak hypothesis wide open and furthermore has a coin toss chance of being false.

Why would the Chinese try to suppress the fact that it may have originated in a leak from one of their labs? Is that what you are asking? They are already “giving the game away” as you say.

Do you believe they have been open and transparent about the origins of the virus and it’s initial spread?

Are you giving them a pass on one cover up, thinking they are being entirely truthful about everything else?

King Mob · 19-01-2021 4:50am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Studies are being suppressed by the Chinese government.

Nowhere did I claim that “all scientific papers are invalid” as you claim. I merely pointed out the fact that over half of scientific papers are false.

Ok. So then the papers they are suppressing have a good chance of being false?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are pinning your entire argument on a peer reviewed paper which leaves the lab leak hypothesis wide open and furthermore has a coin toss chance of being false.

Misrepresentation.
That's not my position and it's not an accurate description of the paper and it's conclusion.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why would the Chinese try to suppress the fact that it may have originated in a leak from one of their labs? Is that what you are asking? They are already “giving the game away” as you say.

No. This is more misrepresentation on your part.

You claimed that it might be impossible to detect if the virus was manufactured.
Leaving aside the other points you ignored, this raises the question of why they would attempt to hide something that is undetectable.
If it was undetectable, there would be no need to hide it.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you believe they have been open and transparent about the origins of the virus and it’s initial spread?

Are you giving them a pass on one cover up, thinking they are being entirely truthful about everything else?

No no and no.

mcsean2163 · 19-01-2021 9:39am

King Mob wrote: »

The conclusion is not retracted.
That is a very bizarre interpretation of what was written.
The rest of your post is baseless speculation.

Direct quote from the paper you posted.

we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.

Belief and probability are not definites.

King Mob · 19-01-2021 9:45am

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Direct quote from the paper you posted.

Belief and probability are not definites.

Yes. No science is "definite". No paper ever says something with 100% certainty.
Any papers conclusions can be overturned with new evidence.
However, as the paper states, this is unlikely.

And the believe in the paper is based on the science and facts contained in the paper. It's not some notion they plucked out of the air.

This notion that if the papers conclusion isn't 100% definite and states it that can never be disproven is a bizarre interpretation of science.

So why in your worldview was this paper allowed to be published? Were the authors just really bad at their jobs or are they part of the conspiracy you are suggesting?

mcsean2163 · 19-01-2021 10:50am

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. No science is "definite". No paper ever says something with 100% certainty.
Any papers conclusions can be overturned with new evidence.
However, as the paper states, this is unlikely.

And the believe in the paper is based on the science and facts contained in the paper. It's not some notion they plucked out of the air.

This notion that if the papers conclusion isn't 100% definite and states it that can never be disproven is a bizarre interpretation of science.

So why in your worldview was this paper allowed to be published? Were the authors just really bad at their jobs or are they part of the conspiracy you are suggesting?

I already answered those questions. Why not discuss the answer I gave you? Perhaps it was unclear and needs further clarification?

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 11:04am

King Mob wrote: »

You claimed that it might be impossible to detect if the virus was manufactured.
Leaving aside the other points you ignored, this raises the question of why they would attempt to hide something that is undetectable.
If it was undetectable, there would be no need to hide it.

Undetectable in the sequence of the virus doesn’t mean that is not possible to determine whether or not the outbreak can to traced to the Wuhan lab.

If you believe, as you say you do, that the Chinese are involved in a cover up surrounding the origins of Covid what do you think they are covering up?

King Mob · 19-01-2021 11:22am

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I already answered those questions. Why not discuss the answer I gave you? Perhaps it was unclear and needs further clarification?

Where have you given this answer?

King Mob · 19-01-2021 11:27am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you believe, as you say you do, that the Chinese are involved in a cover up surrounding the origins of Covid what do you think they are covering up?

I didn't say that.
I'm a bit tired of the constant misrepresentation and question dodging.

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 11:31am

King Mob wrote: »

I didn't say that.
I'm a bit tired of the constant misrepresentation and question dodging.

You answered NO to the following questions.

Do you believe they have been open and transparent about the origins of the virus and it’s initial spread?

Are you giving them a pass on one cover up, thinking they are being entirely truthful about everything else?

Has your view changed in the last 12 hours?

King Mob · 19-01-2021 11:36am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You answered NO to the following questions.

Do you believe they have been open and transparent about the origins of the virus and it’s initial spread?

Are you giving them a pass on one cover up, thinking they are being entirely truthful about everything else?

Has your view changed in the last 12 hours?

No. But no where in those answers did I say "I believe they are engaged in a cover up." That's a misrepresentation on your part.

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 11:40am

King Mob wrote: »

No. But no where in those answers did I say "I believe they are engaged in a cover up." That's a misrepresentation on your part.

Either you are being disingenuous or you don’t know the meaning of cover up.

“A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up, information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up, deception is used.”

King Mob · 19-01-2021 11:54am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Either you are being disingenuous or you don’t know the meaning of cover up.

“A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up, information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up, deception is used.”

Which is predicated on there being wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information.
If that isn't a factor, not being open and transparent isn't a cover up.

I don't know whether or not there is wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information that China is attempting to conceal.

There's plenty of reasons beyond this where they would not be open and transparent.

So no, I don't currently positively believe that China is engaged in a cover up.

They could be involved in a cover up, but I don't know what that might be or what that is.
I think it's not likely to be that the virus was manufactured or altered, then leaked or was otherwise released from their lab as the weight of scientific evidence and the opinion of the majority of scientists point to a natural origin. Further the arguments for a lab origin are not very well supported and rely on a lot of fallacious logic and conspiratorial claims.

Not sure I can make my position any clearer or unambiguous for you.
I still expect some misrepresentation though.

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 12:16pm

King Mob wrote: »

Which is predicated on there being wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information.
If that isn't a factor, not being open and transparent isn't a cover up.

I don't know whether or not there is wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information that China is attempting to conceal.

There's plenty of reasons beyond this where they would not be open and transparent.

So no, I don't currently positively believe that China is engaged in a cover up.

They could be involved in a cover up, but I don't know what that might be or what that is.
I think it's not likely to be that the virus was manufactured or altered, then leaked or was otherwise released from their lab as the weight of scientific evidence and the opinion of the majority of scientists point to a natural origin. Further the arguments for a lab origin are not very well supported and rely on a lot of fallacious logic and conspiratorial claims.

Not sure I can make my position any clearer or unambiguous for you.
I still expect some misrepresentation though.

So just to recap.

You don’t believe the Chinese are involved in a cover up surrounding Covid-19.

You believe that Ireland with a population of 6 million has more than twice as many Covid infections as China with a population of 1,400 million? No cover up, nothing to see here.

You accept the fact that they have not been open and transparent and that they have suppressed information but believe they may have totally legitimate reasons for doing so, apart entirely from any cover up of Covid 19.

Is your position really credible?

King Mob · 19-01-2021 12:42pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So just to recap.

You don’t believe the Chinese are involved in a cover up surrounding Covid-19.

You believe that Ireland with a population of 6 million has more than twice as many Covid infections as China with a population of 1,400 million? No cover up, nothing to see here.

You accept the fact that they have not been open and transparent and that they have suppressed information but believe they may have totally legitimate reasons for doing so, apart entirely from any cover up of Covid 19.

Is your position really credible?

Ah, there's that misrepresentation I mentioned.

the purple tin · 19-01-2021 1:01pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, there's that misrepresentation I mentioned.

46959a99779022aa4544419be7c847bcaf480850.gif&key=7802f51c66081f83f89a0b1616f63dce47e84c97b12e485959c44e2924114ebf

King Mob · 19-01-2021 1:09pm

Nah, when people will completely misrepresent your position despite directly explaining it in granular detail, at the same time refuse to answer direct questions then, it feels a bit more:

the purple tin · 19-01-2021 1:15pm

King Mob wrote: »

Nah, when people will completely misrepresent your position despite directly explaining it in granular detail, at the same time refuse to answer direct questions then, it feels a bit more:

King Mob · 19-01-2021 1:17pm

Care to point out where I said any of the things I'm accused of saying, or just going to keep trying the same joke?

King Mob · 19-01-2021 1:36pm

Just the attempts at jokes then. Cool.

Ted_YNWA · 19-01-2021 2:13pm

Mod - can we discuss the topic with words, rather than gifs.

Posts deleted

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 2:36pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, there's that misrepresentation I mentioned.

You are not being misrepresented. You are just unwilling to defend the position you have taken.

This is what you said:

“So no, I don't currently positively believe that China is engaged in a cover up.”

King Mob · 19-01-2021 2:43pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are not being misrepresented. You are just unwilling to defend the position you have taken.

This is what you said:

“So no, I don't currently positively believe that China is engaged in a cover up.”

Yes. And I tried to make the meaning of that very clear to you. You instead chose to misrepresent me and claim I held positions I don't hold.

I did not say:
"No cover up, nothing to see here."

"they may have totally legitimate reasons for doing so, apart entirely from any cover up of Covid 19."

Or any of the other long list of myriad misrepresentations I had to correct you on.

I have no interest in clarifying in any more detail only to be misrepresented again all while you continue to refuse to address questions put to you.
You still have not given a direct answer to my original question.

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 4:04pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. And I tried to make the meaning of that very clear to you. You instead chose to misrepresent me and claim I held positions I don't hold.

I did not say:
"No cover up, nothing to see here."

"they may have totally legitimate reasons for doing so, apart entirely from any cover up of Covid 19."

Or any of the other long list of myriad misrepresentations I had to correct you on.

I have no interest in clarifying in any more detail only to be misrepresented again all while you continue to refuse to address questions put to you.
You still have not given a direct answer to my original question.

I don’t understand what you mean by “make the meaning of that very clear to you”.

Is there more than one meaning to you not believing the Chinese were involved in a cover up?

King Mob · 19-01-2021 4:32pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t understand what you mean by “make the meaning of that very clear to you”.

Is there more than one meaning to you not believing the Chinese were involved in a cover up?

See the last line of my post.

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 4:57pm

King Mob wrote: »

See the last line of my post.

If your question still relates to whether or not I accept the conclusions of the paper you linked to I think it’s fair to say we have been round and round that point.

The conclusions, far from being proof positive as you seem to contend, merely say that the alternative hypothesis, that of the lab leak could be the favoured hypothesis if more information was available.
And as I have pointed out and you seem to have denied, China is controlling the available information on which conclusions can be drawn.

King Mob · 19-01-2021 5:07pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If your question still relates to whether or not I accept the conclusions of the paper you linked to I think it’s fair to say we have been round and round that point.

The conclusions, far from being proof positive as you seem to contend, merely say that the alternative hypothesis, that of the lab leak could be the favoured hypothesis if more information was available.
And as I have pointed out and you seem to have denied, China is controlling the available information on which conclusions can be drawn.

And that's not the question I asked either.
And more misrepresentation of both me and the paper.

SafeSurfer · 19-01-2021 5:17pm

King Mob wrote: »

And that's not the question I asked either.
And more misrepresentation of both me and the paper.

If you don’t wish to be misrepresented maybe try to represent yourself in a much clearer way.

Do you or do you not believe China has been involved in a cover up surrounding the origins of COVID-19?

King Mob · 19-01-2021 5:37pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you don’t wish to be misrepresented maybe try to represent yourself in a much clearer way.

Do you or do you not believe China has been involved in a cover up surrounding the origins of COVID-19?

But I explained my position in excruciating detail, you still found a way to misrepresent me.
You are demanding an answer to a question I've answered while you're still avoiding my original one.

I don't know if China is involved in a cover up or not, so I do not currently hold the positive belief that they are.
I don't hold the position that they are not, nor do I discount the possibility they are.

Do you believe the study I provided was valid?
(ie. the study was free of error and was not fraudulent in any way.)

Based on the information they actually analyzed, do you agree with their statements:

Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus...

And

we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

Again, yes or no answers will do there.

mcsean2163 · 19-01-2021 6:16pm

Safesurfer,

For your own mental health, I'd recommend disengaging from the king mob.

He's demanding binary answers around a paper that gives a belief instead of a binary answer. The mind boggles.

King Mob · 19-01-2021 6:20pm

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Safesurfer,

For your own mental health, I'd recommend disengaging from the king mob.

He's demanding binary answers around a paper that gives a belief instead of a binary answer. The mind boggles.

Yup. Avoid giving direct answers. Good advice there.

And my questions are straight forward and have nothing to do with your bizarre interpretation of the conclusion.

I'm asking if you believe the study was valid or not.
I'm asking if you agree with their statements or not.

But you guys don't seem to want to clarify your position on this for some reason.

mcsean2163 · 20-01-2021 12:43am

https://www.cnet.com/features/the-hunt-for-covid-19s-origin-and-the-lab-leak-theory/

Interesting and new origin detective I hadn't heard of previously, Chan.

mcsean2163 · 20-01-2021 1:09am

Wall Street journal extends the conspiracy.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-needs-a-real-investigation-into-the-origins-of-covid-19-11610728316?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/wXqfSWSDTX

lucernarian · 20-01-2021 1:12am

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I have to say the more I read the more shocked I am this is published in nature.

Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise.

Their argument seems to center on the idea that a manmade virus would be better designed. Because the design is not optimum it cannot be manmade and thus a bunch of probabilities give certainty of which they are not certain. Published in nature??

I'll have to read it again as the argument that probability yields certainty is simply mathematically not true. Any higher leaving certificate student knows this.

I did medical research coming from an engineering background and was shocked by how far behind the technology was by cannot get my head around how this got published in a prestige journal.

Yes, this is something that's bugged me since its publication. It's blatant whataboutery. It presupposes the intention of any hypothetical creation, and not e.g. the insertion of a naturally-ocurring RNA exon into a betacoronavirus of unknown pedigree. It also presupposes that the WIV has published any and all strains of virus available to it, to an extent. Why build a ford focus when you could build a Ferrari? Well anyone can tell you which is a lot easier to find on the street outside, to continue the analogy. I've no answers to offer as to the origin btw, I would say the letter to Nature was badly-researched and considered an overly narrow range of circumstances.

mcsean2163 · 20-01-2021 1:17am

Great research by Harvard based Alina Chan

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1320344055230963712?s=20

21 weeks to get the results of her peer review versus papers from WIV published in 9 days. It's just so weird.

I'll say this, now that Trump is gone science may become less politicised.

lucernarian · 20-01-2021 1:39am

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Great research by Harvard based Alina Chan

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1320344055230963712?s=20

21 weeks to get the results of her peer review versus papers from WIV published in 9 days. It's just so weird.

I'll say this, now that Trump is gone science may become less politicised.

I don't think so - sides are established now and reputations are at stake. But as widespread mainstream media articles are now raising issues that are being discussed on this thread, I don't see how or why this is in conspiracy theories rather than discussed on one of the scientific interest forums.

King Mob · 20-01-2021 2:31am

lucernarian wrote: »

I don't see how or why this is in conspiracy theories rather than discussed on one of the scientific interest forums.

Because a lot of the discussion in the general public involves more of the claims that the virus was a bioweapon deliberately released for one reason or another.

mcsean2163 · 20-01-2021 2:47am

lucernarian wrote: »

I don't think so - sides are established now and reputations are at stake. But as widespread mainstream media articles are now raising issues that are being discussed on this thread, I don't see how or why this is in conspiracy theories rather than discussed on one of the scientific interest forums.

According to Alina, the pangolin theory is represented by misrepresented data put forward by a very small set of authors.

https://theconversation.com/how-china-is-controlling-the-covid-origins-narrative-silencing-critics-and-locking-up-dissenters-152751

Who knows maybe the origin will be uncovered yet..

mcsean2163 · 20-01-2021 3:01am

Stanford spreading conspiracy theories too.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246

It's astonishing how many high ranking institutions and scientists are involved in this elaborate conspiracy theory.

Covid-19 likely to be man made

Comments