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

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

minervanett.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 494 posts

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

#41

Post by lemmsjid »

chrisco255 wrote: post #30
maest wrote: post #11

This is a really big claim, so some background checking: The paper was published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics[0] (this accepted version is materially different from the original link posted here). Only thing I could find about Birger Sorensen's was his Linkedin page [1a] and the Immunor page where he's listed as the Chairman [1b]. Angus Dagleish looks legit, although it's notable that he did stand for Parlia…

Why do the background checking? Why not just consider the arguments on their merits alone? That's what science is.

I think it's valid in a politically charged scenario such as this one to take into account the motivation behind the research as well as the research itself. At least in a forum like this one, as opposed to similar research papers. And I think the GP did it in an even handed way.

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

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

cryptica wrote: post #35

When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view more seriously. Now seeing additional papers coming out supporting this, the case is getting stronger. I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) be so well adapted to sprea…

> I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats)

Bats are mammals, and so far from “totally unrelated” to humans, but...

> be so well adapted to spreading between humans?

So, Spanish flu wasn't of avian (far less related to humans than bats) origin but was also a man-made bioweapon?

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

#43

Post by cooliosis »

kirse wrote: post #38
i_cannot_hack wrote: post #9

> A Norwegian virologist has made claims about the non-natural origins of the new coronavirus. These claims were, reportedly, in an earlier draft of the paper, and Dr Sørensen has since repeated them to Norwegian press. > The final version of the research paper, which has undergone peer review and been accepted for publication in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, doesn’t actually make any claims about whe…

The scientific community widely agrees One has to wonder how a "Fact Check" site can make an assertion like this without any provided list of references. What exactly does "widely agree" even mean? Was there some sort of statistical polling they did to establish that? Exactly what percentage of the scientific community constitutes "widely" anyways? In fact, this website appears to enjoy using the word "widely" within…

Putting "all scientists agree" in quotes when that isn't in the source material is highly misleading.

Edit: op edited their post

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

#44

Post by netsharc »

bnjms wrote: post #14

I’m open to this idea but I cannot imagine a goal for this line of research. It doesn’t appear to benefit anyone.

Being a scientist and saying it's man-made would get someone a lot of fame in the nutjob community, which they could probably convert to money.

I say nutjob, maybe the rest of the scientists just haven't been convinced by the data yet.

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

#45

Post by gridlockd »

lemmsjid wrote: post #32
etangent wrote: post #2

That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."

I think there's a two way problem. The current state of public discourse on science in the U.S. is very skewed from scientific consensus. For example a YouGov poll found that 49% of Americans think that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab. This kind of skew between public perception and scientific consensus can create a siege mentality, because it's easy to find someone who has been convinced by some media subculture…

What are the “reams of evidence” that the virus did not come from a lab?

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

#46

Post by bshoemaker »

etangent wrote: post #2

That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."

That's because it's exhausting to debunk idiots & those operating in bad faith (often both); it takes several orders of magnitude more work to respond and debunk that unicorns don't exist than it does to post that they do.

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

#47

Post by robbiep »

cryptica wrote: post #35

When Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier suggested that COVID-19 could be man-made, I started taking this view more seriously. Now seeing additional papers coming out supporting this, the case is getting stronger. I'm not a biologist but I do find it strange that COVID-19 is so infectious in humans. How can a virus which supposedly 'naturally evolved' in a totally unrelated animal species (bats) be so well adapted to sprea…

By the same logic, was the H1N1 spanish flu designed to perfectly flourish and kill possibly 10% of hosts?

You say it in your second paragraph. You're no biologist. But you find it strange. Very few biologists find it strange. They have in fact been warning of a ticking time bomb [0 for brevity, 1 for article].

May I respectfully suggest that you stick to your lane regarding the science? WHO ups and downs and political bickering to one side, science is a messy process of honing in on the right answer and lay-people have a hard time wrapping their heads around that when other answers fitting in more closely with their world view abound. It would be nice if scientists could come out on day 1 and tell everyone exactly what to expect but that isn't how science works.

[0] https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-warned-that-china-was-a-... [1] https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/20/4/660.full.pdf

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

#49

Post by robbiep »

chrisco255 wrote: post #30
maest wrote: post #11

This is a really big claim, so some background checking: The paper was published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics[0] (this accepted version is materially different from the original link posted here). Only thing I could find about Birger Sorensen's was his Linkedin page [1a] and the Immunor page where he's listed as the Chairman [1b]. Angus Dagleish looks legit, although it's notable that he did stand for Parlia…

Why do the background checking? Why not just consider the arguments on their merits alone? That's what science is.

In science (as in politics) it is important to understand the reputations of the people who have produced research. Andrew Wakefield being a terrific example.

It's also important to point out that this is pretty much an opinion piece.

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

#50

Post by Robotbeat »

bnjms wrote: post #18
Robotbeat wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a side note, but this is uncharacteristically overwrought and overconfident language for scientific discourse. EDIT: It sounds less like a scientific/academic argument and more like the caricature of a legal argument.

Not sure he has any options there. The normal approach would need to be overwhelming to be taken seriously without the protection of some political language. You’ll need to defend your reasoning just for people to hear you out once there are political implications. And that’s on top of the normal work. I can’t interpret this though so I cannot say myself.

I don’t agree. Political, overconfident language is not scientifically appropriate, especially for a paper purporting to overturn the scientific consensus.

Sounds like this is language that was in there before peer review but that was removed before publication. Makes sense that part didn’t pass peer review as it’s improper to make such overconfident conclusions and claims in a scientific paper.

Post reply on HN