Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

minervanett.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 494 posts

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

#91

Post by fanimalmanimal »

bnjms wrote: post #18
Robotbeat wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m a layman, but the paper reads more like a series of assertions. Maybe those assertions are self evident for an expert in the field (Id love if someone could reply with follow up information if that’s the case), but it just doesn’t seem to present actual evidence to back up the claims.

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

#92

Post by groby_b »

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."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

If you make a claim that's wildly diverging from established consensus, yes, you're required to bring overwhelming evidence. Because the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the claim being wrong.

There's no point in relitigating everything from first principles unless you can make it extremely clear it's worth the effort.

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

#93

Post by xster »

mjirv wrote: post #79

Epidemiologist Ellie Murray said it better than I could, so I’ll just quote her: “Yes, the chance of a virus like SARS-CoV-2 suddenly arising is fairly low. That’s why we have so few pandemics!! But conditional on being in a pandemic the chance that the virus that arises to cause it is like SARS-CoV-2 is super high!! There’s no conspiracy, just statistics”[0] That said, the fact that the outbreak started so close to…

> certainly suggestive that it escaped from the lab, though that doesn’t mean it was necessarily “man made.”

https://www.iesdouyin.com/share/video/6823589225980644623

Dr Fauci said it better than I could, so I'll just quote him: "hahahaha"

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

#94

Post by jkhdigital »

Gatsky wrote: post #86

This is very unlikely. The technology to design a virus reliably just isn't there. What is much more likely is that a lab was studying coronavirus isolates from animals, and had a failure of containment. This has happened multiple times before (eg. with small pox). But even then it is a moot point, because there is no way China, or any country for that matter, would admit they unleashed a global pandemic. Can you ima…

The paper literally walks you through the sequence of published research which demonstrates that scientists have successfully performed chimeric virus manipulation that could explain the observed genetic components present in SARS-CoV-2. The technology is hiding in plain sight.

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

#95

Post by nthj »

causality0 wrote: post #88

Do viruses closely related to SARS-Cov-2 do all the "unusual" things it does? Do they cause brain damage, reproductive damage, anosmia without congestion, strokes, and unusual clotting activity? If not, I would be reassured by someone explaining to me how a natural pathogen could pick up all these features at the same time.

If the natural pathogen causes blood clots, everything else you described naturally occurs as a side effect.

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

#96

Post by drtillberg »

cryptica wrote: post #35

When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view more seriously. Now seeing additional papers coming out supporting this, the case is getting stronger. I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) be so well adapted to sprea…

Luc Montagnier's theory is inconvenient in two ways: 1. it suggests that academic research concerning viruses is potentially catastrophically hazardous and 2. he predicted that the pandemic will dissapate all on its own because the manipulated aspects of the virus will not survive long.[1]

These are truly fascinating claims, especially the second, which despite the credibility and stature of the source, have been targeted rather than reported by traditional media outlets in the U.S.

[1] https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-m...

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

#97

Post by ddxxdd »

lord_braleigh wrote: post #28
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."

You're free to present crazy-sounding arguments in day-to-day conversation, but a journal isn't the place to present crazy arguments. Journals are where you present overwhelming evidence or replicate/falsify existing results.

Journals are where scientists present any sort of evidence that is backed by sound reasoning, meta-studies are where overwhelming evidence tends to be presented.

If it were any other way, then where would scientists publish underwhelming evidence that is crucial for accumulation in order for overwhelming evidence to appear?

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

#98

Post by noxer »

jimbob45 wrote: post #63
cryptica wrote: post #35

When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view more seriously. Now seeing additional papers coming out supporting this, the case is getting stronger. I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) be so well adapted to sprea…

Nobel laureate James Watson insists black people are genetically stupider than white people and Watson made arguably the most significant scientific discovery of the 20th century along with Crick. Even Nobel laureates are humans prone to mistakes.

What if he is correct? Or what if it would be exactly the other way around? We simply don't know because no one is "allowed" to do that kind of research. We found genetic reasons why some type of cancer are more common in some people. We see all kind of other differences that are genetically. Form hairs on the head to the foot shape and toes. Differences between people are obvious. So how likely is it actually that the brain is the same for all? It's only racist if you think people should be treated differently or have different rights. Its not racist if you find differences just like it isn't sexist if you find difference between man and woman.

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

#99

Post by nothal »

robbiep wrote: post #47
cryptica wrote: post #35

When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view more seriously. Now seeing additional papers coming out supporting this, the case is getting stronger. I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) be so well adapted to sprea…

By the same logic, was the H1N1 spanish flu designed to perfectly flourish and kill possibly 10% of hosts? You say it in your second paragraph. You're no biologist. But you find it strange. Very few biologists find it strange. They have in fact been warning of a ticking time bomb [0 for brevity, 1 for article]. May I respectfully suggest that you stick to your lane regarding the science? WHO ups and downs and politic…

I understand your impetus to tell others to 'stick to your lane' but I respectfully disagree and cite their post and your response as why. OP had what you deem a misapprehension and they deem a valid point. By voicing their point as they believes it, you were able to retort with evidence you feel should convincingly disprove it. To me, this is reasoned, diverse discourse correcting for unintuitive misapprehensions, at the very least. Is this not a medium like HackerNews is for?

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

#100

Post by jkhdigital »

i_cannot_hack wrote: post #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 whe…

“ doesn’t actually make any claims about whether the virus was natural or man-made in its current form.”

Huh? The paper claims that the preponderance of evidence supports a theory that the virus is the product of a sequence of laboratory manipulations. I suppose this could hinge upon one’s definition of “man-made” but creating a chimera is man-made in my opinion.

Post reply on HN