171–180 of 372 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Alex Jones quote is "I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin frogs gay". Where'd you get your quote? or did you make it up?
It's a direct quote from the comment I replied to. They've since edited their post.
"Based on the underlying genetic structure, we have already established that, if COVID-19 was the result of a lab escape, it was from gain-of-function research. "
This claim is illogical and does not stand. For example, a lab could have stored naturally occurring viruses that were then later leaked.
If the article is asserting that the virus could only have resulted from gain-of-function research, then why bother assigning a probability to it being naturally occurring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Probably our most surprising finding to date: COVID-19 has likely originated in a lab. A probabilistic analysis shows the proximity to a major coronavirus lab and anomalies in the genetic code are too unlikely for SARS-CoV-2 to have developed naturally. They're stating the facts of the results of the probabilistic analysis, not the facts of the actual situation. Their only comment about the actual situation is that…
One of the links goes (after a few steps) to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x that now has a warning: > 11 November 2020 Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised about the identity of the pangolin samples reported in this paper and their relationship to previously published pangolin samples. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, it's because this claim, or rejection of it, is strongly tied to political identity. Because the US is highly polarized right now, once political identity comes into play, you've left the realm of rationality and entered the realm of tribalism.
This is on par with election fraud. No matter if there is any, one side will downplay while the other screams it’s the tip of the iceberg. Both sides know presidential elections are a zero-sum game and will do whatever it takes to win. Again, I don’t think there was that much, let alone enough to swing the election, but we can’t even discuss any of it honestly.
The Chinese sure acted like it was a possibility that it came from their own lab - their initial reaction was to downplay and cover up.
Using this logic isn’t it likely it came from the US? Simultaneously saying it’s nothing and China did it seems suspicious.
Whenever this topic comes up, the discussion seems to consist largely of _extremely_ strong opinions against the perfectly plausible hypothesis (don't forget, the evidence of zoonotic origin is equally thin on the ground). My question is, why? What does it matter whether the virus originated from a lab or from a wet market - it isn't any more dangerous if it came from a lab, nor does knowing the origin really help de…
Maybe this is pedantic, but the introduction to humans could have happened in a wet market whether the virus itself originated in a lab (where bats could have escaped or been smuggled out and sold, etc.) or zoonotically.
Unfortunately, I do not have the chops to debate against this, but the political ramifications would be immense. The bet ( https://www.rootclaim.com/rootclaim_challenge ) requires that (a) you have $100k (b) are able to successfully debate it. I won't put $100k against this, but I'll put $10k against it, because "the truth" is worth it. I'll pool $10k into a $100k stake behind a debate team that can debate this (and…
Please clarify your date format. Is that 1st of March or the day before 4th of January? According to my European sentiment it's the 3rd of January, is that correct?
Unfortunately, I do not have the chops to debate against this, but the political ramifications would be immense. The bet ( https://www.rootclaim.com/rootclaim_challenge ) requires that (a) you have $100k (b) are able to successfully debate it. I won't put $100k against this, but I'll put $10k against it, because "the truth" is worth it. I'll pool $10k into a $100k stake behind a debate team that can debate this (and…
Please clarify your date format. Is that 1st of March or the day before 4th of January? According to my European sentiment it's the 3rd of January, is that correct?
"Looking for an unambiguous calendar-and-clock format that is internationally understood? It’s time for ISO 8601."
"ISO 8601 tackles this uncertainty by setting out an internationally agreed way to represent dates:
YYYY-MM-DD
For example, September 27, 2012 is represented as 2012-09-27."
Just look at this:
However, Wuhan stands out for housing the Wuhan Institute of Virology, one of only a few labs engaged in gain-of-function research.
How does this imply causality? Why do they not consider the simple alternative, that a location that specialises in gain-of-function research of coronaviruses has the highest concentration of people who are able to DETECT novel coronaviruses with a much higher likelihood? If the virus originated in a city that has no lab specializing in these viruses, how would they ever have distinguished it from pneumonia?
The coexistence of the lab and the outbreak of the disease leads them to raise their estimate from 1.4% to 42%(!) lab made chance although it does not establish cause at all and does not even consider this inherent bias in sensitivity to detection.
Where do they offer $100K to anyone who debunks their hypothesis? How can someone "prove" it is Zoonotic in origin, to "win" the bet? Is this a false challenge; Someone may be able to prove that this started in a lab, but no one can prove the opposite. Free publicity. As an aside, it looks like they list "No whistleblowers" and "No reported infections at WIV" as increasing the odds it is not Zoonotic, which makes no…