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

An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

thelancet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 335 posts

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#241

Post by civilized »

chitowneats wrote: post #234
civilized wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't tell my aunt that it's idiotic to blindly believe spike protein sheds from the vaccinated and harms people, or that VAERS has recorded thousands of vaccine-caused deaths, because she read it on FB. But I do think it's idiotic to believe that, and every once in a while I'm going to say so. It's not just some innocent difficulty with finding the signal in the noise. It's sentimental, ideological delusion, an…

Most people I know would say it's idiotic to use "horse paste" as an early prophylactic against covid, despite how much context such a statement obscures. You are making a mistake generalizing the case of your aunt to the rest of society. You come off as quite emotional about it, frankly. Sure, maybe you can psychoanalyze her accurately given your close relation. It's not helping your argument in a public setting lik…

Ivermectin is safe in humans, and it isn't difficult to find that out.

I'm ignoring your speculation about me and plan to continue to do so, so let's not bore each other.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#242

Post by iammisc »

tjpnz wrote: post #38
peakaboo wrote: post #3

We live in interesting times, where "conspiracy theories" become true after about 6 months. The reality of the situation is that people who actually pay attention, not the ones who constantly watch the TV news narrative, have been able to not only understand the true origin of covid, but also predict the entire chain of events that has occurred as a consequence. When will the general public stop seeing conspiracy the…

The lab leak hypothesis has backing from credible scientists. Conspiracy nuts had nothing to do with it's rise to prominence. They just related it to their existing batch of paranoid delusions.

Ivermection has backing from credible scientists in India.

So does Hydroxchloroquine from credible scientists all over the world.

You're just picking and choosing who you call credible.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#243

Post by chitowneats »

civilized wrote: post #241
chitowneats wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I know would say it's idiotic to use "horse paste" as an early prophylactic against covid, despite how much context such a statement obscures. You are making a mistake generalizing the case of your aunt to the rest of society. You come off as quite emotional about it, frankly. Sure, maybe you can psychoanalyze her accurately given your close relation. It's not helping your argument in a public setting lik…

Ivermectin is safe in humans, and it isn't difficult to find that out. I'm ignoring your speculation about me and plan to continue to do so, so let's not bore each other.

Ivermectin is safe. It's an anti-parasitic, not an anti-viral. Is it effective against covid? There are very smart people out there who have serious concerns with the primary study Ivermectin proponents point to showing effectiveness against this virus.

In all fairness, my entire qualm with you is the way you've needlessly personalized this discussion. We could have discussed the issues at hand directly. Alas.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#244

Post by iammisc »

int_19h wrote: post #223
tasogare wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but also predict the entire chain of events that has occurred as a consequence I wouldn't have agreed with you a year ago, but having seen it for myself, it's scary how true it is. All the wild "conspiracy theories" about the vaccine passport notably came to reality 6-8 months or so after being voiced.

What's the conspiracy aspect of that? It was widely understood early on that if anything would be a long-term solution, it's vaccines. And vaccine mandates have been around for many decades, so why was it surprising that they also showed up?

It's surprising, because many politicians and many newspapers and magazines spent months publishing articles that such a system was firmly in the realm of crazy conspiracy theories. Stop gaslighting.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#245

Post by ravel-bar-foo »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #87
dogsboywonder wrote: post #18

The amount of censorship, especially among the qualified scientific community in just about every facet of this disease is alarming. Even if the origins were accidental or lab-born or whatnot, the response has been so politicized worldwide that pure science has been largely thrown out the window. Every possibility should be analyzed & tested, even if it goes against the interests of a ruling party and all parties are…

I don't believe it is fair to call what the qualified scientific community is doing as "censorship", in fact I would go even further and say that calling it as such is purely political propaganda. The scientific community is doing the studies, all the studies, every possibility is be analyzed & tested, even the most outlandish claims are being thoroughly tested in many many scientific studies/trials. Every scientist…

The whole point of the present article is that the "current consensus" has been astroturfed, and is based on no evidence whatsoever. If you allow me to get more cynical, several journalists have now written about how (1) natural origins was initially popularized as a "consensus" view by just a few scientists on Twitter an effort to smear Tom Cotton. Due to the political valence, this messaging caught on with journalists.

(2) The correspondence of the authors behind the initial Lancet article which dismisses non-natural origin investigations as conspiracy theory (seeking to build the consensus view and much cited by the above jornalists) has been obtained by FOIA. It reveals the authors engaging in conspiracy and collusion: the managing editor bypassed the normal editorial process, the authors decided not to have some people sign so the statement would look less partisan and chose wordings that they knew were not supported by evidence, in particular deciding to ignore concerns about the very unlikely codons at the furin cleavage site. Moreover, none of the authors declared conflicts of interest. (And still, after much outcry, only one has made such a declaration.)

In short, any consensus for a natural origin is very much artificial and should be considered irrelevant.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#246

Post by newbamboo »

andrepd wrote: post #213
Clubber wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because hate, hate, hate, hate. That's what sells ads. If you read an article that makes you feel superior to another group of people, like "look what these stupid people are doing," in so many words, that's a hate-monger company. There are many. Fear also sells, and it's a cousin to hate. You can't really have hate without fear. Fear of loss, fear of some unknown boogie man (George Soros, Koch brothers, etc.) It's…

It's amazing the huge amount of the world's ills that ultimately can be traced back to advertising. Online social networks have only turbocharged it.

Engagement == enragement

A very simple cause and effect that nobody will do anything about because dollarinos.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#247

Post by [deleted] »

armchairhacker wrote: post #122
void_mint wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm in a big American city, and I remember that until the online kids and snarky liberals started moralizing about mask protocol, there wasn't as much resistance to wearing masks among right-wing crazies. We're living in very different worlds I guess.

I do know some conservative, religious, pro-Trump communities were very focused on stopping the spread of covid and locking down. It wasn’t a partisan issue, it was common knowledge that covid-19 made people sick and we had to stop it. Until Donald Trump decided to say covid-19 is a hoax and preventative measures are unnecessary. Presumably because he‘s so contrarian that anything the Democrats supported he opposed a…

[deleted]

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#248

Post by epakai »

mardifoufs wrote: post #189
chrischen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the vaccine endorsed by the right is called Ivermectin.

Trump has endorsed the vaccine repeatedly and at the time when democrats were literally saying not to trust the vaccine. So I'm not sure about that

Trump has been spouting anti-vaccine rhetoric since before has candidacy. He dismissed the seriousness of the disease, and called other's response part of a hoax. Before the vaccine he made unnecessary endorsements of alternative treatments.

His push for vaccine development and encouraging people to get it might be commendable, but they ring hollow and lack effectiveness because of his past stances.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#249

Post by civilized »

chitowneats wrote: post #243
civilized wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin is safe in humans, and it isn't difficult to find that out. I'm ignoring your speculation about me and plan to continue to do so, so let's not bore each other.

Ivermectin is safe. It's an anti-parasitic, not an anti-viral. Is it effective against covid? There are very smart people out there who have serious concerns with the primary study Ivermectin proponents point to showing effectiveness against this virus. In all fairness, my entire qualm with you is the way you've needlessly personalized this discussion. We could have discussed the issues at hand directly. Alas.

Look at 1/6. Look at how people can be spun up into a frenzy based on bullshit. It's not innocent. And it's not just Trump (or the right). Look around, you'll start to see it.

If it makes you upset to hear that, then I've touched a nerve you needed to know you had.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#250

Post by eunos »

iammisc wrote: post #233
Aeolun wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After Trump nothing surprises me any more.

The only people who think Trump was the source of the division are out-of-touch liberals. I don't even mean this pejoratively. I just encourage you to look beyond the current predominant media narratives. This society has been breaking apart for a while. All the signs have been there. Trump shocked the liberals, but Obama shocked the conservatives before him, and we can ping pong back and forth for a while I'm sure.…

I just puzzled how did Obama win with a landslide yet very divisive (not Obama fault).
Post reply on HN