101–110 of 267 posts
(ie shortly after the scientific community suddenly revoked it's embargo on the idea that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was studying bat coronaviruses, might have had something to do with the sudden appearance of a bat coronavirus in Wuhan that still has no evidence of a natural origin).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prominent, respected virologists have been questioning gain of function research for a while The quotation you cite from Lipitsch doesn't validate your comment. He wasn't "questioning gain of function research". He was calling for greater oversight over gain of function research and for more initiatives to try to limit the damage potential of zoonotic spillover. If anything, Lipitsch was upholding the value of gain…
Huh? The title of the piece is "Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?" The introduction specifically criticizes entire categories of GoF research, stating that it goes against the consensus view of many virologists. How is that not "questioning?" Lipsitch has been consistently critical in other fora too, including a quote in a Science piece[1], a call for a debate[2], and other com…
"I think it's possible to split out the question of bioresearch risks from Covid origins. If it was a lab leak, obviously we should regulate those risks better, but we should also do more to mitigate zoonotic spillover, because we have tons of evidence that happens and causes damage. If it wasn't lab leak, we should do more to mitigate spillover, but it would also be a good idea to be more careful about biosafety."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s almost like those two pieces are completely unrelated to one another. If you’re looking for someone with a clean record commenting on the viability of the lab leak theory for months, take a look at Bret Weinstein.
I took a look at Bret Weinstein, and it wasn’t good. Not good at all. He seemed to be making every effort he could to blame the mRNA vaccines for problems that —if true— could have any number of mundane explanations. But hey, maybe he’s right about the lab leak theory.
This article has a number of issues that jump out to me from just a cursory read. The author admits that the NIH has a specific definition of "gain of function research" and then seems to go forward with the article using their own definition, without calling out that they're doing this. Why are they using their own definition instead of the NIH's? The Chinese research this author cites claims that there are large re…
You are seeing these issues because the piece is based on motivated reasoning The author has more than a few other pieces which helped push the US into invading Iraq back on 2003 And these are the same old tactics which were used to foment the invasion of Iraq in the 90s with things like the unquestioned statements such as "throwing babies out of incubators"
To think that a few months ago, sharing this article would have gotten someone banned from Facebook for sharing "conspiracy theories".
Indeed. The whole thing needs to be looked at. Someone somewhere decided that the topic was taboo and needed to be purged from the internet, and then someone somewhere decided that it was ok that the tpoic gets to see the light of day. It's all quite sinister.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took a look at Bret Weinstein, and it wasn’t good. Not good at all. He seemed to be making every effort he could to blame the mRNA vaccines for problems that —if true— could have any number of mundane explanations. But hey, maybe he’s right about the lab leak theory.
Yeah sadly he's gone off the deep end on "spike protein", but he has been a good fount on the origins of covid.
1) Researchers easily found multiple naturally occurring coronaviruses that seemed likely to be able to jump into humans. In fact that is why they were so eager to conduct that lab research: the natural threat seemed imminent.
2) The sequence of COVID-19 does not yet resemble any of the sequences associated with the lab research that was being conducted.
Much of the article reminds me of the description of how NASA ended up launching a shuttle in temperatures far below what they originally would have allowed. You walk just past the line, nothing bad happens, so you move the line a bit. You walk just past that line, nothing bad happens...and this repeats until, inevitably, eventually, something bad happens. Regardless of whether or not this pandemic came from this lab…
I have trouble imagining what an external auditor established in China would look like. A worldwide rating similar to credit ratings, where failing to play the game correctly results in sanctions? If China's IP history has shown us anything, it's that they will do whatever they want with reckless abandon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? The title of the piece is "Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?" The introduction specifically criticizes entire categories of GoF research, stating that it goes against the consensus view of many virologists. How is that not "questioning?" Lipsitch has been consistently critical in other fora too, including a quote in a Science piece[1], a call for a debate[2], and other com…
Oh I see. I didn't follow your links, rather I thought your second para was the quote. "I think it's possible to split out the question of bioresearch risks from Covid origins. If it was a lab leak, obviously we should regulate those risks better, but we should also do more to mitigate zoonotic spillover, because we have tons of evidence that happens and causes damage. If it wasn't lab leak, we should do more to miti…
"The Last And Only Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out" [1] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid...