The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
1–10 of 494 posts
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#2That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#3Impossible for non experts to interpret, but deserving of an equally careful and thorough response in any rebuttal claims.
> Conclusion
> We have deduced the internal logic of published research which resulted in the exact functionalities of SARS-CoV-2,
> including the convergence of agreement from difference classes of source,
> the timings of the stages of the research,
> and the development of documented capabilities by named institutions and individuals.
> These meet the criteria of means, timing, agent and place in this reconstructed historical aetiology to produce sufficient confidence in the account to reverse the burden of proof.
> Henceforth, those who would maintain that the Covid-19 pandemic arose from zoonotic transfer need to explain precisely why this more parsimonious account is wrong before asserting that their evidence is persuasive, most especially when, as we have indicated, we note puzzling errors in their use of evidence.
> In our companion article, in a similar forensic manner we will explore the primary evidence used to sustain the hypothesis of zoonotic transfer.
> In neither this article nor the next do we speculate about motive.
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#4[deleted]
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#5That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."
It's because normal people are not equipped to deal with the cherrypicking and manipulative narrative that these kinds of "evidence" papers show. Take the 5G conspiracy for example, 100+ cell phone towers attacked, and workers setting up attacked as well. Lots of testable assertions made, none backed up with any kind of evidence.
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#6That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."
"You better agree with consensus" has always been the current culture in science. It's nothing to do with science itself -- just human emotionality. We don't change unless we have to, unless there's overwhelming evidence that we need to.
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#7Lets throw them a bone and say they're right, what do we do next? What actions do or can we take? Secure the labs? Shouldn't that be done regardless?
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#8Impossible for non experts to interpret, but deserving of an equally careful and thorough response in any rebuttal claims. > Conclusion > We have deduced the internal logic of published research which resulted in the exact functionalities of SARS-CoV-2, > including the convergence of agreement from difference classes of source, > the timings of the stages of the research, > and the development of documented capabilit…
Just a side note, but this is uncharacteristically overwrought and overconfident language for scientific discourse.
EDIT: It sounds less like a scientific/academic argument and more like the caricature of a legal argument.
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#9> A Norwegian virologist has made claims about the non-natural origins of the new coronavirus. These claims were, reportedly, in an earlier draft of the paper, and Dr Sørensen has since repeated them to Norwegian press.
> The final version of the research paper, which has undergone peer review and been accepted for publication in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, doesn’t actually make any claims about whether the virus was natural or man-made in its current form.
> The scientific community widely agrees that the virus was not artificially engineered.
https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-cla...
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#10That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."
It's because normal people are not equipped to deal with the cherrypicking and manipulative narrative that these kinds of "evidence" papers show. Take the 5G conspiracy for example, 100+ cell phone towers attacked, and workers setting up attacked as well. Lots of testable assertions made, none backed up with any kind of evidence.
But this could very well be a result of priming people for a consensus (or its opposition) I’m too young to judge but it wasn’t always like this or was it?