Live data from Hacker News

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

minervanett.no

471–480 of 494 posts

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

#471
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

There's no accepted definition of intelligence so how could he be correct [0]? He's using a culturally defined comparison which unsurprisingly places him on the winning side. If you make comparisons on the basis of race (which is a social construct[1]) where the result demonstrates "racial superiority" then it is racist. It's social and cultural influences all the way down. [0] http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what…

He made the statements with the word "intelligence" but obviously meant IQ points as it is still the only way to measure something close to what we experience as intelligence. Away its not relevant I didn't talk about intelligence I specifically said "differences" because it removes the implicit rating. It should be up to everyone to decide whether it is good or bad or rather irrelevant or whats most likely, it has its pros and cons like almost all other known genetic differences. The whole "winning side" and "racial superiority" etc. is made up. He obvious could not choose his own race and even put "his own race" in the middle according to his definitions of intelligence. The "winning side" would have been some Asians and he is clearly is not Asian.

He also never proclaimed any kind of race superiority. Pointing out a conclusion of his research can not be racists even if the facts turn out to be wrong because of an error. Or maybe the facts stay correct in case of the IQ differences but other research suggests that IQ points are horribly to measure intelligence. Either way you would need to find prejudice, discrimination or basis IN HIS RESEARCH not in his concussion to convict him of actually being racist. Errors or definition changes simply should lead to a new concision that would be that there is still a measurable difference in brains but it doesn't directly correlate to intelligence. In every other similar situation this would be common sense. For example people with Trisomy 21 have statistically significant lower IQs. Its just a fact. No one comes around and screams racism if you state that fact. Also no one who states that fact wants to express their superiority over these people. In fact people who research all this are on the front line to support these people because knowing the differences is what allows coexisting with maximal individual freedom. Denying differences does not help anyone.

>It's social and cultural influences all the way down. Plenty of research suggests otherwise. Like I said in my previous post "how likely is it actually that the brain is the same for all?" While all the rest of the human body has differences. Its actually very very unlikely and reality is almost certainly a mix between social and cultural influences and genetic differences in the brain but also in the rest of the body that affects the brain in millions of different ways.

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

#472
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

People are allowed to do that research, and it has been done before, and the conclusion was that no significant differences were found.

I said "allowed" for a reason. You can of course research whatever but if you publish something either none cares because you are a nobody or you get canceled if it doesn't support the "current truth". People have better things to do than destroying their reputation for zero reward.

The rest is just a lie. There are plenty known significant differences especially difference in risk for diseases that are linked to genetic differences. And that's about the only place where research is done today because if you literally are the person who tries to cure cancer you are apparently whitelisted ehm... I mean allowlisted from seeing genetic differences.

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

#473
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

They are allowed. They just aren’t supported because their work is absurd, easily disprovable and so obviously wrong it’s not worth considering. They are free to self publish, but no one should be forced to publish their work.

Red post above the " " have a meaning too.

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

#474
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My understanding is that SARS-CoV-2 has novel amino acid sequences (eg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7114094/). Shuffling genes from other viruses wouldn't achieve this.

The original article doesn't seem to address this directly. But I'm not a virologist. Perhaps you know more about it than I do.

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

#475
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will add a few points which I read on a github page and I am unable to verify, so I would be keen to have others review and sanity check: 1) The likely genetic source of SARS cov1 and cov2 is a species of bat in Yunnan province, thousands of miles away, two provinces away from Hubei (Wuhan). Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/ 2) The outbreak allegedly started in December in Hubei province wh…

5) We're talking about a dense urban area ~ 1580 km^2. A _lot_ of businesses and institutions are within 13 km radius from each other. And there are 19 million people in this metro area. So a lot of things should e hapenning in the same city and only few km away, but most of them are not related to each other. 1, 2, 4) are probably irrelevant, because the researchers mostly agree that there was an intermediate host (…

I suppose my issue here is that, all the point I mentioned appear to be inconsistencies with the current official statements and all the counter arguments deconstructed them are probability based and arguably as speculative as the authors claims on biogenisis.

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

#478
post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are allowed. They just aren’t supported because their work is absurd, easily disprovable and so obviously wrong it’s not worth considering. They are free to self publish, but no one should be forced to publish their work.

Red post above the " " have a meaning too.

I've parsed this a few times, but cannot work out what you are trying to say.

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

#479

This is the immunology equivalent of "jet fuel can't melt steel beams". It's embarrassing to see it here, especially in a community with pretensions of bringing "disruption" to biotech. It would take a long time to catalog all the nonsense here but I'll just say that short subsequence (6aa) BLAST is meaningless and this subsequent claim is just word salad: "Such high human similarity also implies a high risk for the…

Regarding your fuel comment, that is what NIST found. They confirmed in their report that indeed, it cant and didnt. They rely on a weakening... where the fire was, which is a few floors of the top of the 2 buildings. The 3rd building is a different eh... reason. Here is an overview: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/prete...

I’m not sure why you’re downvoted, I thought it’s widely known by now that there were helpers on the ground for 911. Building 7 being the easiest one to draw conclusions from.

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

#480
post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't know that. But in a way this further proves my point. How can one be expected to "stick to one's lane" when you have to check on each and every "expert" out there. It is quite valid to think by oneself! It's surprising to me the GP looked at what a Nobel laureate said with trust and was still told to "stick to one's lane". And if science facts need to be "voted on" by a majority of scientists then it stops b…

When things are so clearly bullshit then the point of being 'open minded' about things that are done and dusted only serves to confuse and obfuscate. Take the US at the moment. A contry ripped apart by anti-scientific thinking.

To be more specific, the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are still potentially unknown but if the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it has natural origin. So what does the purpose of dissenting voices, and the average joe seizing on one of these because 'it feels right'? It's the same problem that has lead to anti-vaccers - the unneecessary sewing of doubt where it is not their place to doubt.

Stay open minded, ask important questions, but for gods sake, if you are not a scientist, recognise that those that are trained people who are doing much of the hard work for you. And scientific concensus is not going to be overturned by someone listening to the president on fox news or one outlier quack peddler

Post reply on HN