The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#11

Post by maest » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:52 PM UTC

This is a really big claim, so some background checking:

The paper was published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics[0] (this accepted version is materially different from the original link posted here).

Only thing I could find about Birger Sorensen's was his Linkedin page [1a] and the Immunor page where he's listed as the Chairman [1b].

Angus Dagleish looks legit, although it's notable that he did stand for Parliament in 2016 as a UKIP candidate, according to Wikipedia[2].

Can't find any primary sources for Andreas Susrud.

[0]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

[1a]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/birger-sorensen-174a20b/?origina... btw, if this is considered doxxing, let me know and I can remove the link.

[1b]: https://immunor.com/about-immunor/board-of-directors/

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Dalgleish

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#12

Post by droopyEyelids » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #5

etangent wrote: post #2

That 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.

I agree normal people aren't well equipped. But when you phrase it that way, you make it sounds like the professionals are well equipped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#13

Post by solvorn » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

There’s evidence but not proof. People confuse these words all the time.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#14

Post by bnjms » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

I’m open to this idea but I cannot imagine a goal for this line of research. It doesn’t appear to benefit anyone.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#15

Post by foogazi » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

bnjms wrote: post #14

I’m open to this idea but I cannot imagine a goal for this line of research. It doesn’t appear to benefit anyone.

How about to find out if it’s possible to artificially start a pandemic ?

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#16

Post by hdjrkrmfkt » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

bnjms wrote: post #14

I’m open to this idea but I cannot imagine a goal for this line of research. It doesn’t appear to benefit anyone.

"Gain of function" is regularly done to make various viruses "better" so as to study then how to defend against that potential mutation happening naturally.

See the big scandal from some years ago when the H5N1 virus was modified in a lab to be airborne, and the accusations that such research on such a dangerous virus is just reckless.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#17

Post by chrismcb » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

emsy wrote: post #10

belltaco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Galileo says, no it wasn't always like this.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#18

Post by bnjms » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #8

gowld wrote: post #3

Impossible 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.

Not sure he has any options there. The normal approach would need to be overwhelming to be taken seriously without the protection of some political language. You’ll need to defend your reasoning just for people to hear you out once there are political implications. And that’s on top of the normal work. I can’t interpret this though so I cannot say myself.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#19

Post by johnny22 » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

emsy wrote: post #10

belltaco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

depends on what you mean by always, but looking back at how this was handled re: tobacco, leaded gasoline, and climate change (pre 2000) should give you some idea.

As far as I personally can see, it's been like this for a large portion of the 1900s at least.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#20

Post by mtgp1000 » Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #5

etangent wrote: post #2

That 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.

>It's because normal people are not equipped to deal with the cherrypicking and manipulative narrative that these kinds of "evidence" papers show

I'm pretty sure this is the exact attitude that the poster was describing. You're just blanket dismissing out of mainstream science with accusations of bad faith.