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

391–400 of 494 posts

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

#391

Post by briandear »

wonnage wrote: post #204
waspleg wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why give a government with modern day concentration camps, forced organ harvesting, and military occupation of free countries like Hong Kong the benefit of the doubt on biological weapons research gone awry?

Why give a government with modern day concentration camps, an avoidable epidemic of prisoners with COVID-19, and military occupation of free countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or more historically in Iraq (again), Somalia, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Cuba, I feel like I’m just naming random countries at this point...the benefit of the doubt about anything?

Syria is a free country? Have you been there?

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

#392

Post by orwin »

fierarul wrote: post #321
robbiep wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier not science worthy enough to give credit or what is your point? Or is science a democratic forum where the most votes win and not facts? If it's not facts but guesstimates then everybody has equal input into that, some intuitively more so.

You're probably not french nor in a quack-watch group (anti-guru groups essentially).

Luc montagnier made a lot of money writing about how homeopathy works thanks to water memory, i'd say i would disqualify every work he's done since then if it is not peer-reviewd.

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

#393

Post by jkhdigital »

calf wrote: post #206
jkhdigital wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, in the conclusion they refer to "means, timing, agent and place" which seems to frame this like one would prosecute a criminal trial in the absence of "smoking gun" physical evidence. If the researchers at the heart of all this were located far from the epicenter of the outbreak, then you'd need to find a good explanation for why it started where it did, which is why I think it should be mentioned as a distinc…

Ah okay it's like the difference between a forensic argument vs a scientific argument.

No, that’s a misleading comparison. There is no such thing as a “scientific argument” about matters of historical record, because you cannot conduct science on history. Forensics is all there is. It’s just that there is no piece of evidence that incontrovertibly ties the virus to the lab prior to the outbreak, e.g. a leaked research document dated prior to the outbreak showing knowledge of the virus or something.

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

#394

Post by i_cannot_hack »

jkhdigital wrote: post #100
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.

They are referring to the final, peer reviewed version of the paper, as opposed to the draft.

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

#395

Post by jkhdigital »

Gatsky wrote: post #248
jkhdigital wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah but actually building the proteins is the non-trivial and most difficult step. It is not sufficient to merely say that it could be done.

They didn’t “build” new proteins, they swapped them between viruses. And their published research doesn’t imply that these things could be done, it is transparent evidence that they did it already.

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

#396

Post by TheBigSalad »

matwood wrote: post #357
jkhdigital wrote: post #127

Here's the Cliff Notes version of the argument in this paper: 1. SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unique and unusual genetic features, when compared to close relatives, many of which explain its high virulence and infectivity among humans. 2. A series of research papers published by a group of virologists, dating back a little over a decade, demonstrate (1) a progressively increasing understanding of viral features which m…

Thanks for the summary. It feels a bit like the intelligent design argument for God. It has these features, we can’t imagine them randomly coming together, so it must have been designed. Add that humans really want to ascribe motive and reason to events, when sometimes it really is jus chance.

So in other words, you choose to disregard all of this evidence.

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

#397

Post by murgindrag »

vzaliva wrote: post #184

Has it been peer reviewed? Otherwise not being an epidemiologist it is hard for me to judge weather the scientific argument presented by this paper is sound.

Unfortunately, peer review is roughly as good as a die roll these days. I've submitted many scientific publications. I think only one was seriously read by reviewers. Others -- both accepted and rejected -- had comments which demonstrated the reviewers hadn't read it. One paper -- accepted -- it was clear reviewers didn't even give a cursory skim (ACM venue too).

NIPS found peer review to be no better than chance, and my experience is the same.

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

#398

Post by snowwrestler »

murgindrag wrote: post #361
curiosity42 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were to make a great bio weapon that would do the maximum damage, I will have these attributes: 1. Spread it easily; 2. Don't kill the ones who spread it most easily (the young); 3. Be lethal enough to overwhelm the system. And so I have the Covid-19. Of course it is all post-fact analysis. but it also answers your question of why would an experiment make a less sever virus in the first place - to address the bi…

And if I were to make a bioweapon, I would think about long-term impact. (1) Millions disabled is far worse than millions dead. (2) Attacks can come in multiple pieces. The first virus might do damage to make people especially vulnerable to the second virus. If I can protect my population against the first one /or/ the second, my people are safe. My opinion is it's just a matter of time before we see bioweapons, and…

Infectious bioweapons are a horrible idea in a highly connected world for the reason we can all plainly see: they don’t respect national borders.

It is an old-fashioned notion of a weapon that only made sense when there was little exchange between the citizens of states in opposition, like the U.S. and USSR.

China, for whom international trade is a crucial part of their strategy, would not work on an infectious disease weapon unless they simultaneously developed a vaccine to protect their own people. The fact they are not currently vaccinating their population, or even in the lead in developing a vaccine, is extremely strong proof that COVID-19 did not originate as a Chinese bioweapon candidate.

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

#399

Post by wokwokwok »

Aeolun wrote: post #379
wokwokwok wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tough call. If you read the actual paper, what they say is: "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 a…

How you interpret their data is up to you (e.g. whether it gives you a high level of confidence). But they’ve clearly given you proof that the virus is artificial. Personally I think the circumstantial evidence in this case is fairly strong. But I’m hardly impartial.

> they’ve clearly given you proof that the virus is artificial

No, they haven't.

The evidence is circumstantial.

You can choose to believe what you want to believe; but the fact is that they have not proved anything.

That's the problem with the paper. Actually read the darn thing.

I'm 100% sympathetic to what they're saying here and I do hear their arguments, but this paper doesn't prove it.

> Personally I think...

You know the quote. "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

If it comes down to "well, I think that's high confidence" and someone else is just like "well i don't" as a personal opinion ("...But I’m hardly impartial..."), then, don't you think, maybe they haven't really done a great job here?

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

#400

Post by philistine »

sudosysgen wrote: post #244
jkhdigital wrote: post #127

Here's the Cliff Notes version of the argument in this paper: 1. SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unique and unusual genetic features, when compared to close relatives, many of which explain its high virulence and infectivity among humans. 2. A series of research papers published by a group of virologists, dating back a little over a decade, demonstrate (1) a progressively increasing understanding of viral features which m…

This isn't entirely true, though. SARS-CoV-2 is much less virulent than SARS or MERS. For a virus that recently crossed the zoonotic barrier, and even moreso for one crossing from bats, it's virulence is actually astonishingly low. Therefore, the hypothesis of a two-stage crossing to humans, from bats to a larger land based mammal and then to humans is much much more likely, because this would explain high transmissi…

How can you argue that the outcome of a test is known before that test is performed? That’s why the test is made in the first place.
Post reply on HN