Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
30 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, PurpleYouko, ringo, vimesey (5 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Post Volume: Total: 887,613 Year: 5,259/14,102 Month: 180/677 Week: 39/26 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   COVID vaccine works - we're saved!
nwr
Member
Posts: 5805
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 91 of 160 (886854)
06-12-2021 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Percy
06-12-2021 1:18 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
The longer we go without finding the natural origin the more likely some other origin becomes.

I actually think you have that backwards.

The longer we go without finding credible evidence for the lab leak hypothesis, the more likely that the natural origin is the correct one.

Tracking down the natural origin is notoriously difficult, in comparison with finding evidence of malfeasance.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 1:18 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 6:17 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20329
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 92 of 160 (886855)
06-12-2021 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
06-12-2021 1:42 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
PaulK writes:

quote:
I was just puzzled by your "judge a book by its cover" criteria, which you still haven't justified or explained.

It’s not about judging a book by it’s cover it’s simply a concern that the choice of venue indicates that the article might not have had sufficient review.

Judging an article based on where it appears is judging the book by its cover.

quote:
It's far more nuanced than that, plus you're engaging in the poisoning the well fallacy: "He was wrong about this, so therefore we can conclude he's also wrong about that without considering it on the merits."

Wrong again. It’s that we can’t consider him a reliable authority.

What should he be considered then?

Really? This is what the scientists said:

As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.

Presenting an “incomplete and inaccurate account” is more than simply speculating beyond the evidence. 139 scientists signed that letter and another 4 added their names after publication.

This was quoted in the Wikipedia article I referenced. It's what I was responding to when I said they reacted with moral repugnance first and found things to criticize later. It's perfectly understandable that scientists would want to distance themselves as far as possible from any potential racist implications of their work.

quote:
How do you reach that conclusion?

The only thing that makes the furin cleavage special is that it increases infectivity in humans - but we’re only looking at this virus because it is highly infectious in humans. So an unusual but known feature - with a plausible natural origin - isn’t exactly strong evidence. Surely we’d expect something of the sort.

So you're balancing a "plausible natural origin" with not "exactly strong evidence." That's fine, but I don't see how there's enough there to decide between them.

quote:
I haven't reached any conclusions myself, but why do you think the evidence weak?

I’ve explained about the furin cleavage above, and I’ve pointed out that we don’t have a strong expectation of finding the natural source. But apparently you won’t explain why you think that the evidence makes a lab release as likely as a natural origin.

I never said anything like that. If you reread my Message 83, I only said that Wade's article helped me understand why the engineering possibility is suddenly receiving increased attention.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2021 1:42 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2021 1:11 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20329
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 93 of 160 (886856)
06-12-2021 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by nwr
06-12-2021 5:45 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
nwr writes:

The longer we go without finding credible evidence for the lab leak hypothesis, the more likely that the natural origin is the correct one.

I wasn't talking about the lab leak hypothesis but the engineered hypothesis. Both the engineered and natural options have only circumstantial evidence right now.

Realize the engineered hypothesis was starting from "almost completely dismissed" status. I wasn't saying that it was becoming more likely than the natural hypothesis, only more likely than it was.

Tracking down the natural origin is notoriously difficult, in comparison with finding evidence of malfeasance.

I think what can more accurately be characterized as "notoriously difficult" is getting to the bottom of something that happened in China that they don't want to get blamed for.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tracking down the natural origin," but finding at least some evidence of a natural origin is not "notoriously difficult." It's been nothing but dead ends so far.

But I'm not advocating the engineered hypothesis. I offered the Wade article as explaining why the engineered hypothesis is suddenly receiving increased attention.

--Ted


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by nwr, posted 06-12-2021 5:45 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 94 of 160 (886857)
06-13-2021 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
06-12-2021 5:55 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
Judging an article based on where it appears is judging the book by its cover.

It isn’t and I’m not judging it on that, simply noting that it likely hasn’t had the checks that it would receive before publication in a more appropriate peer-reviewed journal.

quote:
What should he be considered then?

A journalist - which he is - with a record of misreporting science.

quote:
This was quoted in the Wikipedia article I referenced. It's what I was responding to when I said they reacted with moral repugnance first and found things to criticize later. It's perfectly understandable that scientists would want to distance themselves as far as possible from any potential racist implications of their work

You’re asserting that he did not misrepresent their work? That the letter is untrue in that respect? That’s a pretty serious accusation to throw at the signatories to the letter.

quote:
So you're balancing a "plausible natural origin" with not "exactly strong evidence." That's fine, but I don't see how there's enough there to decide between them

There are plenty of unknown viruses out there, all mutating all the time. There are much fewer engineered viruses, and those are handled in controlled conditions. If there isn’t good evidence to support the lab release hypothesis we must prefer the natural origin. It’s inherently more probable.

quote:
I never said anything like that. If you reread my Message 83, I only said that Wade's article helped me understand why the engineering possibility is suddenly receiving increased attention

In fact you did say “something like that” in Message 86

The possibility that the 12-nucleotide insertion appeared naturally cannot be excluded (and Wade says this) but neither can it be considered more likely than engineering,

Now will you explain what evidence is strong enough to raise the inherently improbable lab release hypothesis to the same level as natural origin ?

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 06-12-2021 5:55 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 10:01 AM PaulK has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20329
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 95 of 160 (886861)
06-13-2021 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
06-13-2021 1:11 AM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
PaulK writes:

quote:
Judging an article based on where it appears is judging the book by its cover.

It isn’t and I’m not judging it on that, simply noting that it likely hasn’t had the checks that it would receive before publication in a more appropriate peer-reviewed journal.

It's not research and does not belong in a peer-reviewed journal. It's a magazine article in a magazine. Read Write for the Bulletin - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to get a better idea of what it is and of their editorial policies.

quote:
What should he be considered then?

A journalist - which he is - with a record of misreporting science.

Well of course he's a journalist. I said as much when I mentioned he'd worked at Nature, Science and The New York Times. Did you misinterpret mentioning his employment at Nature and Science as a claim that he was a scientist? If you've read those journals then you know they have many layperson level magazine articles in the beginning about the technical papers that appear later. I assume he worked on the magazine articles.

And you're poisoning the well again. Make your objections to what he says not to the supposed wrongs you're convinced he committed.

quote:
This was quoted in the Wikipedia article I referenced. It's what I was responding to when I said they reacted with moral repugnance first and found things to criticize later. It's perfectly understandable that scientists would want to distance themselves as far as possible from any potential racist implications of their work

You’re asserting that he did not misrepresent their work? That the letter is untrue in that respect? That’s a pretty serious accusation to throw at the signatories to the letter.

I'm asserting that there's no way to know whether he misrepresented their work because the scientists statement is very open to suspicion that it was motivated by a desire to distance their research from association with racism as far as possible.

But you're still playing "poisoning the well."

quote:
So you're balancing a "plausible natural origin" with not "exactly strong evidence." That's fine, but I don't see how there's enough there to decide between them

There are plenty of unknown viruses out there, all mutating all the time. There are much fewer engineered viruses, and those are handled in controlled conditions. If there isn’t good evidence to support the lab release hypothesis we must prefer the natural origin. It’s inherently more probable.

I didn't believe the claim when first made last year that lab release was nearly impossible. Claims that people and their devices and processes are nearly perfect are invariably wrong. Wade lists a number of lab escape episodes, and who knows how many times viruses have escaped from labs undetected because no known harm resulted.

But I'm not arguing for the "lab release hypothesis." I'm pointing to an article that explains why the the engineered hypothesis is currently receiving increased attention.

quote:
I never said anything like that. If you reread my Message 83, I only said that Wade's article helped me understand why the engineering possibility is suddenly receiving increased attention

In fact you did say “something like that” in Message 86

You do say.

The possibility that the 12-nucleotide insertion appeared naturally cannot be excluded (and Wade says this) but neither can it be considered more likely than engineering,

Now will you explain what evidence is strong enough to raise the inherently improbable lab release hypothesis to the same level as natural origin ?

Again, I'm not interested in the lab release hypothesis. I already believe it more likely than managers of such labs want us to believe.

I'm interested in the engineered hypothesis, and Wade's article explains why it is not "inherently improbable."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2021 1:11 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2021 10:50 AM Percy has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 96 of 160 (886862)
06-13-2021 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
06-13-2021 10:01 AM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
It's not research and does not belong in a peer-reviewed journal.

Which means that it isn’t something to place great reliance on.

quote:
Well of course he's a journalist. I said as much when I mentioned he'd worked at Nature, Science and The New York Times. Did you misinterpret mentioning his employment at Nature and Science as a claim that he was a scientist?

So you think that being a journalist makes him an expert. That explains part of the problem.

quote:
And you're poisoning the well again. Make your objections to what he says not to the supposed wrongs you're convinced he committed.

Pointing out reasons why we shouldn’t take Wade’s word for it is not poisoning the well. Can we just agree that Wade’s opinions should not be considered persuasive in themselves? That his arguments require evaluation.

quote:
I'm asserting that there's no way to know whether he misrepresented their work because the scientists statement is very open to suspicion that it was motivated by a desire to distance their research from association with racism as far as possible

Just as that statement is open to the suspicion that you are defending Wade here because you support his racist views.

quote:
But you're still playing "poisoning the well."

Until your argument gets beyond “Wade says so” pointing out that Wade is not an especially reliable source is a valid reply. Yet I’m the one addressing Wade’s arguments, not you.

quote:
But I'm not arguing for the "lab release hypothesis." I'm pointing to an article that explains why the the engineered hypothesis is currently receiving increased attention

So you have a high profile article, but not much solid argument.

quote:
I'm interested in the engineered hypothesis, and Wade's article explains why it is not "inherently improbable."

In fact he doesn’t give any valid reasons to consider the “engineered” hypothesis as likely as a natural origin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 10:01 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 2:34 PM PaulK has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20329
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 97 of 160 (886873)
06-13-2021 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
06-13-2021 10:50 AM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
PaulK writes:

quote:
It's not research and does not belong in a peer-reviewed journal.

Which means that it isn’t something to place great reliance on.

You're arguing that science writers are unreliable communicators.

quote:
Well of course he's a journalist. I said as much when I mentioned he'd worked at Nature, Science and The New York Times. Did you misinterpret mentioning his employment at Nature and Science as a claim that he was a scientist?

So you think that being a journalist makes him an expert. That explains part of the problem.

I think Wade is a top-notch science writer.

quote:
And you're poisoning the well again. Make your objections to what he says not to the supposed wrongs you're convinced he committed.

Pointing out reasons why we shouldn’t take Wade’s word for it is not poisoning the well.

Except that your reasons are unrelated to what Wade says in the article.

Can we just agree that Wade’s opinions should not be considered persuasive in themselves? That his arguments require evaluation.

Of course. I think you misunderstand why I posted a message about Wade's article. I consider it an explanation for why the engineered hypothesis is now receiving increased attention. I don't consider it a conclusive argument for the engineered hypothesis, nor, as you'll find if you actually read the article, does Wade.

quote:
I'm asserting that there's no way to know whether he misrepresented their work because the scientists statement is very open to suspicion that it was motivated by a desire to distance their research from association with racism as far as possible

Just as that statement is open to the suspicion that you are defending Wade here because you support his racist views.

If you're the kind of person who goes there, go for it. My actual position is that no one on either side of the race/intelligence argument has scientific data to back them up. There are too many confounding factors.

quote:
But you're still playing "poisoning the well."

Until your argument gets beyond “Wade says so” pointing out that Wade is not an especially reliable source is a valid reply.

You're again making the mistake of thinking I'm advocating for the engineered hypothesis. I'm not. I've reached no conclusions. And I've never said anything that could be interpreted as "Wade says so."

But if you're going to make obviously untrue statements such as that Wade is an unreliable source then I'll of course argue the point.

Yet I’m the one addressing Wade’s arguments, not you.

If you do say so yourself.

quote:
But I'm not arguing for the "lab release hypothesis." I'm pointing to an article that explains why the the engineered hypothesis is currently receiving increased attention

So you have a high profile article, but not much solid argument.

The only arguments I'm making are against your baseless opinions, such as that lab escape is inherently improbable. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for lab escape, just that I think you're wrong to characterize it that way.

quote:
I'm interested in the engineered hypothesis, and Wade's article explains why it is not "inherently improbable."

In fact he doesn’t give any valid reasons to consider the “engineered” hypothesis as likely as a natural origin.

You're welcome to that opinion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2021 10:50 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2021 2:45 PM Percy has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 98 of 160 (886876)
06-13-2021 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
06-13-2021 2:34 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
You're arguing that science writers are unreliable communicators.

They often are, but that isn’t my point. The point is that he’s it an expert and his personal opinions - which is what he’s offering - shouldn’t be accepted as anything more than the personal opinions of someone who isn’t an expert.

quote:
I think Wade is a top-notch science writer.

Which still doesn’t make him an expert.

quote:
Except that your reasons are unrelated to what Wade says in the article.

And they don’t have to be. You obviously have a lot invested in
setting up Wade as an authority but he simply isn’t in this matter.

Let us also remember that I did address his arguments.

quote:
Of course. I think you misunderstand why I posted a message about Wade's article. I consider it an explanation for why the engineered hypothesis is now receiving increased attention. I don't consider it a conclusive argument for the engineered hypothesis, nor, as you'll find if you actually read the article, does Wade.

No, you go further than that. You take the article as putting the engineered hypothesis on at least a rough par with the natural origin hypothesis, but the evidence is pretty weak and it really needs to be better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 2:34 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 5:41 PM PaulK has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20329
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 99 of 160 (886884)
06-13-2021 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
06-13-2021 2:45 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
PaulK writes:

quote:
You're arguing that science writers are unreliable communicators.

They often are, but that isn’t my point. The point is that he isn't an expert and his personal opinions - which is what he’s offering - shouldn’t be accepted as anything more than the personal opinions of someone who isn’t an expert.

You're mischaracterizing Wade's article. He's distilling information from the scientific community.

quote:
I think Wade is a top-notch science writer.

Which still doesn’t make him an expert.

Much of our information about the current state of research comes to us through science writers. It is nice when scientists themselves write for laypeople.

quote:
Except that your reasons are unrelated to what Wade says in the article.

And they don’t have to be. You obviously have a lot invested in setting up Wade as an authority but he simply isn’t in this matter.

I really have nothing invested in this. I'm at a loss to understand why you've gone off the deep end about Wade. He explained why the engineered hypothesis is getting increased attention. That's it.

Let us also remember that I did address his arguments.

You really didn't. You said a little about the furin cleavage, which I rebutted, but other than that you've just been derogatory.

quote:
Of course. I think you misunderstand why I posted a message about Wade's article. I consider it an explanation for why the engineered hypothesis is now receiving increased attention. I don't consider it a conclusive argument for the engineered hypothesis, nor, as you'll find if you actually read the article, does Wade.

No, you go further than that.

No, I don't.

You take the article as putting the engineered hypothesis on at least a rough par with the natural origin hypothesis, but the evidence is pretty weak and it really needs to be better.

None of this is true, either. I have said, and will now say again, I don't have an opinion about which is more likely. You're misinterpreting my objections to your inexplicable attacks on Wade the science writer as advocacy for the engineered hypothesis.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2021 2:45 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2021 12:24 AM Percy has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 100 of 160 (886886)
06-14-2021 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
06-13-2021 5:41 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
You're mischaracterizing Wade's article. He's distilling information from the scientific community.

Is he? It doesn’t look that way to me. Which scientists claim that the furin cleavage is evidence of engineering? Is it a consensus view? What about the scientists who disagree?

quote:
Much of our information about the current state of research comes to us through science writers. It is nice when scientists themselves write for laypeople.

And I’ve always said that reading the original paper is better than trusting the science writers.

quote:
I really have nothing invested in this. I'm at a loss to understand why you've gone off the deep end about Wade. He explained why the engineered hypothesis is getting increased attention. That's it.

It is your defence of Wade that has “gone of the deep end”. That’s how I can tell that you are deeply invested.

quote:
None of this is true, either. I have said, and will now say again, I don't have an opinion about which is more likely.

This are contradictory claims. By default the natural origin is more likely by far, for reasons I’ve explained. Indeed, it seems too me that you really want support for the engineered hypothesis which is why you are so determined to defend Wade as an authority (to the point of attacking justified criticism). Certainly you have done nothing to defend his arguments.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 06-13-2021 5:41 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 06-14-2021 12:01 PM PaulK has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20329
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 101 of 160 (886887)
06-14-2021 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by PaulK
06-14-2021 12:24 AM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
PaulK writes:

quote:
You're mischaracterizing Wade's article. He's distilling information from the scientific community.

Is he? It doesn’t look that way to me.

It's fine with me if you have a different opinion. I only find fault with the way you deal with information or opinions you disagree with, by attacking the person.

Which scientists claim that the furin cleavage is evidence of engineering? Is it a consensus view? What about the scientists who disagree?

You're either mischaracterizing or misconstruing the situation. No one is claiming the scientific community is divided into opposing camps of engineered versus natural origins. The actual situation is that more voices within the scientific community are coming forward in favor of a closer look at the engineered possibility.

quote:
Much of our information about the current state of research comes to us through science writers. It is nice when scientists themselves write for laypeople.

And I’ve always said that reading the original paper is better than trusting the science writers.

If one's competent in the field, sure. But most people are only competent in a limited number of scientific fields, if any. As they say, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and no one's better at misinterpreting a technical paper than someone with a little but not enough knowledge.

quote:
I really have nothing invested in this. I'm at a loss to understand why you've gone off the deep end about Wade. He explained why the engineered hypothesis is getting increased attention. That's it.

It is your defence of Wade that has “gone of the deep end”. That’s how I can tell that you are deeply invested.

Pointing out that someone's attacks are unmerited or in error is something I'd do for anyone. If you claimed Hitler had a peg leg I'd say that Hitler did not have a peg leg, and if recent history is any guide you'd accuse me of defending Hitler, and if I persisted in his defense of being deeply invested in defending Hitler.

But of course your accusations wouldn't be true. It's just your MO of attacking whoever you disagree with using made up accusations instead of discussing the evidence and merits behind the ideas.

quote:
None of this is true, either. I have said, and will now say again, I don't have an opinion about which is more likely.

These are contradictory claims.

What are contradictory claims? You didn't quote enough to tell what "none" refers to.

Going back to your Message 98, here's what you said that I was responding to:

PaulK from Message 98 writes:

You take the article as putting the engineered hypothesis on at least a rough par with the natural origin hypothesis, but the evidence is pretty weak and it really needs to be better.

Reading this again I still arrive at the same assessment: none of this is true. I don't think either hypothesis should be considered more likely at this point, but that more study should be done. The evidence for the engineered hypothesis is not "pretty weak" and is more than sufficient to justify a desire for more study and for more information from the Wuhan lab.

By default the natural origin is more likely by far, for reasons I’ve explained.

If you favor the natural origin hypothesis then that's fine. So did I until recently. I'm now keeping an open mind until we have more information.

Indeed, it seems too me that you really want support for the engineered hypothesis which is why you are so determined to defend Wade as an authority (to the point of attacking justified criticism). Certainly you have done nothing to defend his arguments.

You do say.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2021 12:24 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2021 12:32 PM Percy has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 102 of 160 (886888)
06-14-2021 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Percy
06-14-2021 12:01 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
quote:
It's fine with me if you have a different opinion. I only find fault with the way you deal with information or opinions you disagree with, by attacking the person.

Your problem is that I refuse to accept Wade as an expert, and dare to believe 143 scientists who say that Wade misrepresented the science. It certainly isn’t that I refuse to discuss his arguments - because I did. You are the one who won’t do that.

quote:
You're either mischaracterizing or misconstruing the situation. No one is claiming the scientific community is divided into opposing camps of engineered versus natural origins. The actual situation is that more voices within the scientific community are coming forward in favor of a closer look at the engineered possibility.

No, I asked if Wade was really simply relaying the science or if it was his opinions. So I will ask again. Is it scientists who claim that the furin cleavage is adequate evidence of engineering or is that Wade’s opinion? And if it is scientists, who and where?

quote:
If one's competent in the field, sure. But most people are only competent in a limited number of scientific fields, if any. As they say, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and no one's better at misinterpreting a technical paper than someone with a little but not enough knowledge.

Which includes science writers.

quote:
Reading this again I still arrive at the same assessment: none of this is true. I don't think either hypothesis should be considered more likely at this point, but that more study should be done. The evidence for the engineered hypothesis is not "pretty weak" and is more than sufficient to justify a desire for more study and for more information from the Wuhan lab.

The contradiction is still there. Without evidence the natural hypothesis is more likely tha the engineered hypothesis.

quote:
You do say

And it’s true. You claim that it is unreasonable to believe tha 143 scientists, just because the brief letter did not detail the criticisms and because you suspect that they were just saying that to hide the racist implications of their work (which is the standard racist excuse). You didn’t even do even a minimal investigation - the criticisms aren’t secret and you could easily find at least some It’s pretty clear who is being unreasonable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 06-14-2021 12:01 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 06-15-2021 8:50 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20329
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 103 of 160 (886892)
06-15-2021 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
06-14-2021 12:32 PM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
Thanks for your input.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2021 12:32 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 06-15-2021 12:25 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20329
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 104 of 160 (886894)
06-15-2021 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Percy
06-15-2021 8:50 AM


Re: A Lab Origin for SARS-CoV-2
Here's is some additional information for why the engineered hypothesis is recently receiving increasing attention. There have also been developments in favor of the natural origin hypothesis, but the purpose of this post is to make clear why the engineered hypothesis is no longer being dismissed. Much of this is take from Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible, but a couple are my own insertions:

  • In February of 2020 Botao Xiao, a molecular biomechanics researcher at South China University, posted the paper The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronovirus that concluded that given other safety mishaps at the lab and the focus of its research that "the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan." He withdrew the paper after Chinese authorities insisted there had been no accident. Xiao was previously a postdoctoral fellow at Springer Lab, which is affiliated with Harvard University.

  • Also in Februrary of 2020, twenty-seven scientists released a statement labeling as conspiracy theories any suggestion that the virus has a non-natural origin, but three signatories have since walked it back to say an accidental origin merits consideration.

  • Quoting the November 2, 2020, entry verbatim:

    quote:
    David A. Relman, a Stanford University microbiologist, writes in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: “The ‘origin story’ is missing many key details, including a plausible and suitably detailed recent evolutionary history of the virus, the identity and provenance of its most recent ancestors, and surprisingly, the place, time, and mechanism of transmission of the first human infection.”

  • Quoting the November 17, 2020, entry:

    quote:
    An influential paper written by Rossana Segreto and Yuri Deigin is published: “The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin.” The paper noted that “a natural host, either direct or intermediate, has not yet been identified.” It argues that certain features of the coronavirus “might be the result of lab manipulation techniques such as site-directed mutagenesis. The acquisition of both unique features by SARS-CoV-2 more or less simultaneously is less likely to be natural or caused only by cell/animal serial passage.” The paper concluded: “On the basis of our analysis, an artificial origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not a baseless conspiracy theory that is to be condemned,” referencing the Lancet statement in February.

  • On March 4 of this year scientists issued an open letter to the WHO saying the previous investigation had been flawed and suggesting a much improved one be conducted.

  • In Wade's May 5 piece David Baltimore, a scientist who was once president of CalTech, said, "When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus. These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2."

  • On May 14 of this year eighteen scientists published a letter in Science calling for more investigation into the two leading hypotheses, saying, "Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks." It described previous consideration of the two hypotheses as not being balanced.

  • On May 17 scientist W. Ian Lipkin of Columbia was reported saying that his mind had changed in light of new information.

--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 06-15-2021 8:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5755
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 105 of 160 (887573)
08-10-2021 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
11-09-2020 8:31 AM


Covid vaccine: First 'milestone' vaccine offers 90% protection

90% protection of what?

But wait, was it all those prayers?

Before 2019 it was widely known that vaccines that don't kill the virus can make it mutate into stronger variants. Since vaccinated people can still carry and transmit the virus, I would say this is most likely true. So what does the vaccine actually solve? In the long run more people may die.

We are being told to vaccinate to "stop the virus" ~Dr.Fauci
This seems to be a lie.

Sounds like a money making machine to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 11-09-2020 8:31 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2021 3:12 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 107 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2021 3:33 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 108 by AZPaul3, posted 08-10-2021 5:50 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 109 by kjsimons, posted 08-10-2021 6:44 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021