21–30 of 494 posts
I’m open to this idea but I cannot imagine a goal for this line of research. It doesn’t appear to benefit anyone.
It is going to kill millions of people, potentially reduce the life expectancy of tens of millions more and severely impact everyone on this planet.
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."
Isn't that the whole point of science? Big claims require big proof. What standard are you proposing be used instead?
Or are you leaning on the "better" in that sentence in the sense of coercion? As in, you're saying that arguments without overwhelming evidence that contradict established consensus are being suppressed?
If so, how? This garbage is being circulated endlessly. There's not a virologist in the world who isn't aware of it. It's not suppressed. It's just wrong.
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.
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."
Always how it has been, since beginning of the thing we call "science."
Lets 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?
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.
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
I'm like oh this should be interesting, they must have done some sort of dating on the mutations. maybe there are markings biologists can look at that are telling signs of natural vs man-made. or compared genomes to ... And there 100% undeniable argument: the virus effects bats and people researching bio weapons would -only- look at virus that effects humans.
I'm like really? are you really that narrow minded and completely devoid of imagination? you think labs are only for making bio-weapons? you think someone making a bio-weapon would limit themselves to just virus that effects humans? that's your full proof thinking?
I'm like wow. wow.
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."
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."
Read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Always how it has been, since beginning of the thing we call "science."
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 Parlia…