Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are the "actually qualified"?
The people who claim to be "actually qualified" are the same people who run (ran?) the show at the NIH that have been actively covering up their own opinion that the lab leak of the research they were funding is the most likely source of COVID-19.
Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
11–20 of 31 posts
Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
#12I thought this was a great summary of the "debate": https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r...
Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
#13And yet, shockingly, the consensus of the actually qualified remains that it didn’t start in a lab.
How is it that such an infectious virus no longer exists in any animal population? It's as if after the first human got infected the virus simply vanished off the face of the Earth like some sort of immaculate infection. Now how come when humans infected cats/dogs/deer etc. via reverse zoonosis that SARS2 didn't stop circulating in humans?
Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are the "actually qualified"?
Vincent Racaniello https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello He does not think this started in a lab.
I estimate the probability that the virus is 100% of natural origin to 3.21 ×10−11. And I am backed by one widely ignored article:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.8348...
Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vincent Racaniello https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello He does not think this started in a lab.
So you refer to a consensus of the thinking of one person? I estimate the probability that the virus is 100% of natural origin to 3.21 ×10−11. And I am backed by one widely ignored article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.8348...
3.21 ×10−11
Do you mean 3.21*(-1)=-3.21
Do you mean a number between 32,100,000,000 and 321,000,000,000?
Do you mean odd between 3.21:10 and 3.21:11?
Thanks
Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you refer to a consensus of the thinking of one person? I estimate the probability that the virus is 100% of natural origin to 3.21 ×10−11. And I am backed by one widely ignored article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.8348...
Help me understand your math: 3.21 ×10−11 Do you mean 3.21*(-1)=-3.21 Do you mean a number between 32,100,000,000 and 321,000,000,000? Do you mean odd between 3.21:10 and 3.21:11? Thanks
Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
#17And yet, shockingly, the consensus of the actually qualified remains that it didn’t start in a lab.
Who are the "actually qualified"?
Well, that was easy.
Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
#18And yet, shockingly, the consensus of the actually qualified remains that it didn’t start in a lab.
And what is this consensus based upon outside of what is most beneficial for their field of study? As stated in the article we have not found any infected animals, no antibodies or samples pointing to infected animals, no precursor viruses found circulating in any animals species, no separate spillover events nothing. This is something we find for all spillovers and all of this evidence was uncovered almost immediate…
I don’t even know how to speak to the bizarre (but possibly simply badly communicated on your part) assertion that human -> animal re-transmission events either should (or even could) result in a magic cessation of circulation in humans, as that’s just nonsensical. Post human SARS-CoV-2 lineage infections still persist in animal populations (mink, for example) and likely will continue to do so essentially forever… there’s literally nothing immaculate about this entire situation.
Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
#19He was Chairman of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission, and originally a believer that it didn't come from a lab, now flipped. Sorry the interview is with Tucker. Quite a lot more on the politics of the thing and why it would have happened than the nyt article.
Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points
#20And yet, shockingly, the consensus of the actually qualified remains that it didn’t start in a lab.
Also in the Sachs video I linked elsewhere there's quite a nice bit on the consensus of the actually qualified from here for about 3 mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS-3QssVPeg&t=7205s