Origins of Covid

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The fact that the furin cleavage site exists on a spectrum of similar but not identical site suggests something that exists naturally and is evolving naturally. Since it is actively evolving whether or not something absolutely identical exists in a related virus is irrelevant.

Maybe instead of spouting off your translation in what you don't really have any expertise in you could quote sources that do instead.

Like this one from 2 weeks ago: BioEssays: SARS-CoV-2′s claimed natural origin is undermined by issues with genome sequences of its relative strains - Coronavirus sequences RaTG13, MP789 and RmYN02 raise multiple questions to be critically addressed by the scientific community

Quote:

Abstract
RaTG13, MP789, and RmYN02 are the strains closest to SARS-CoV-2, and their existence came to light only after the start of the pandemic. Their genomes have been used to support a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 but after a close examination all of them exhibit several issues. We specifically address the presence in RmYN02 and closely related RacCSxxx strains of a claimed natural PAA/PVA amino acid insertion at the S1/S2 junction of their spike protein at the same position where the PRRA insertion in SARS-CoV-2 has created a polybasic furin cleavage site. We show that RmYN02/RacCSxxx instead of the claimed insertion carry a 6-nucleotide deletion in the region and that the 12-nucleotide insertion in SARS-CoV-2 remains unique among Sarbecoviruses. Also, our analysis of RaTG13 and RmYN02's metagenomic datasets found unexpected reads which could indicate possible contamination. Because of their importance to inferring SARS-CoV-2′s origin, we call for a careful reevaluation of RaTG13, MP789 and RmYN02 sequencing records and assembly methods. ...

After repeated requests for clarifications from several scientists and journalists and more than 9 months later, the Zhou et al.[1] paper has been amended with an Addendum,[1] which provides some missing information on RaTG13, most of it previously discovered and made public by an independent research group named “DRASTIC”[5] and published by Rahalkar and Bahulikar[6] and Segreto and Deigin.[7]

While the Addendum clarifies some crucial points, such as exact sampling location of RaTG13, and mentions the original paper describing it,[8] the information released is still incomplete and partially in conflict with data previously provided. ...

And like other missing data that might help resolve the origin debate:

Quote:

In addition, new information revealed by the Addendum is that eight other beta-SARSr-CoVs distantly related to SARS-CoV were also isolated from the same Mojiang mine, and sequenced together with RaTG13, but neither their genomes, nor information about their sample names and eventual accession numbers is provided. ...

The Addendum also fails to release details about the number and kind of samples collected from the mine workers, their storage conditions, methods used for each test described and specification of the results obtained.

In addition, the Addendum fails to address and/or contradicts the statements in an MSc[10] and a PhD[11, 12] theses which have previously described in detail the miners’ pneumonia symptoms and stated that SARS Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies were detected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in all four of the miners’ samples tested. ...

More questions:

Quote:

However, several papers have already relied on MP789 for their analysis, namely the widely cited “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2″ paper published in Nature Medicine by Andersen et al.[27] that concludes that SARS-CoV-2 most likely originated in nature. Recent analyses have questioned the possibility of pangolins as possible intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2,[28, 29] therefore Andersen et al.[27] and other authors relying on MP789 should carefully re-evaluate their conclusions. SARS-CoV-2′s RBD, which appears to be highly adapted to human ACE2[30]—even more than the one developed by severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) in 2002/2003,[31] remains a very peculiar feature.

Finally:

Quote:

In conclusion, we propose that the review process of all papers describing SARS-CoV-2′s closest relatives which could contribute to identify SARS-CoV-2′s origin should made public, allowing an open and critical evaluation by the entire scientific community.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Maybe instead of spouting off your translation in what you don't really have any expertise in you could quote sources that do instead.

Like this one from 2 weeks ago: BioEssays: SARS-CoV-2′s claimed natural origin is undermined by issues with genome sequences of its relative strains - Coronavirus sequences RaTG13, MP789 and RmYN02 raise multiple questions to be critically addressed by the scientific community

And like other missing data that might help resolve the origin debate:

More questions:


Finally:

What a terrible paper you've found!

Look something was fixed between preprint and publication, clearly suspicious! also people are conspiring to make fake entries in the genebank database!

They also try to make a big deal that only 2 of the 9 Pangolins sampled had the sequence shared for the receptor binding domain shared by Covid-19 and the Pangolin Sabercorona virus. Maybe, just maybe that's because the other 7 were not infected...

That was just stuff thrown in that has little to do with what the paper is actually saying. They are arguing (and I use that word VERY loosely) that Covid 19 could not be natural spillover from bats in any form. (Not scientists visiting the caves nor live animal trade) because they find evidence of deletions in the binding domain of related viruses.

Deletions have been discussed for a while now. We can't tell whether the furin cleavage site was inserted due to recombination with a Pangolin virus or whether it's an ancestral feature that has been lost or partially lost in covid relatives that infect bats.

The Phylogenetic trees I posted on the previous page that RmYN02 and RacCS203 both have elements of the RNA to form a furin cleavage site in spite of the fact they don't use ACE2 to enter cells. It would hardly be surprising for a virus to lose part of the RBD for something it doesn't connect to. If anything, though, loss of part of the RNA that codes for an unused receptor would further support natural evolutionary forces being involved.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by No Other

It is not as much of a furin cleavage issue as it is the amino acids and location of furin cleavage. The insertion (PRRA) AND cleavage site (S1/S2) are completely unique to Covid-19...

Again, so what? Take enough different things "in combination" and every organism is unique.

Originally Posted by No Other

is why the impact on humans is so much greater than it would be on any other creature, this combination of S1/S2 and PRRA was pretty much a "designer" attack on the human lungs and intestines. "

This part isn't true. There are MANY animals with ACE2 similar to humans where this structure is highly beneficial for the virus. This includes Pangolins but there are many others as well. Considering how quickly Covid spread though mink farms it may be even more infectious to them than it is to humans.

Also, while Covid is more infectious than the flu it's not even close to viruses like measles and it probabaly isn't even as infectious as the original SARS.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

What a terrible paper you've found!

[snipped more unsupported drivel]

The Phylogenetic trees I posted on the previous page that RmYN02 and RacCS203 both have elements of the RNA to form a furin cleavage site in spite of the fact they don't use ACE2 to enter cells. It would hardly be surprising for a virus to lose part of the RBD for something it doesn't connect to. If anything, though, loss of part of the RNA that codes for an unused receptor would further support natural evolutionary forces being involved.

You continue to post demonstrating expertise you clearly do not have.


Moving on...

The authors' credentials:
Rossana Segreto
University of Innsbruck | UIBK · Institute of Microbiology
PhD

Yuri Deigin,MBA...

Quote:

is a serial biotech entrepreneur, longevity research evangelist and activist, and a cryonics advocate. He is an expert in drug development and venture investments in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. He is the CEO at Youthereum Genetics and the Vice President at Science for Life Extension Research Support Foundation.

There was a peer review reply to their paper
There is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin (DOI: 10.1002/bies.202000240)

Quote:

Abstract
The origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the subject of many hypotheses. One of them, proposed by Segreto and Deigin, assumes artificial chimeric construction of SARS-CoV-2 from a backbone of RaTG13-like CoV and receptor binding domain (RBD) of a pangolin MP789-like CoV, followed by serial cell or animal passage. Here we show that this hypothesis relies on incorrect or weak assumptions, and does not agree with the results of comparative genomics analysis. The genetic divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and both its proposed ancestors is too high to have accumulated in a lab, given the timeframe of several years. Furthermore, comparative analysis of S-protein gene sequences suggests that the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 probably represents an ancestral non-recombinant variant. These and other arguments significantly weaken the hypothesis of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2, while the hypothesis of a natural origin is consistent with all available genetic and experimental data.

The bolded is an argument by incredulity which I believe is not supported by the facts.


... to which the authors responded:There are no valid points of criticism in Tyshkovskiy and Panchin’s response (10.1002/bies.202000325) to our paper “The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin” (DOI: 10.1002/bies.202000240)

Quote:

Abstract
Tyshkovskiy and Panchin have recently published a commentary on our paper in which they outline several “points of disagreement with the Segreto/Deigin hypothesis”. As our paper is titled “The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin”, points of disagreement should provide evidence that rules out a laboratory origin. However, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin provide no such evidence and instead attempt to criticize our arguments that highlight aspects of SARS‐CoV‐2 that could be consistent with the lab leak hypothesis. Strikingly, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin’s main point of criticism is based on a false premise that we have claimed RaTG13 to be a direct progenitor of SARS‐CoV‐2, and their other points of criticism are either incorrect or irrelevant to our hypotheses. Thus, the genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 remains consistent with both natural or laboratory origin, which means that both the zoonotic and the lab leak hypothesis need to be investigated equally thoroughly.

Perhaps you can comment intelligently regarding the peer review and the rebuttal?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Segreto's Twitter is intersting:

Quote:

Rossana Segreto
@Rossana38510044
·
May 10/1
This all boils down to probability.

What are the odds of a virus new for humans but best adapted for human infection because of a sequence new for its group, the FCS, AND an high affinity RBD, that originated a pandemic after few months from its appearance..

Rossana Segreto
@Rossana38510044
·
3h
These lies make me feeling enraged because I was falsely accused to be a conspirator for more than a year but also ashamed and worried because of an unexpected behaviour of scientists and scientific journals with great reputation. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

Quote:

WhatsInWuchang
@InWuchang
· 3h
Replying to @stuartjdneil @lab_leak and 7 others
Andersen lied about addressing an "analysis". We know there was no analysis because Cotton said he didn't have evidence. Cotton just suggested the labs be investigated.

Andersen lied about multiple material facts, so no surprise he lied about this.

Interesting.

Quote:

Rossana Segreto
@Rossana38510044
·
22m
This is a real shame. He forgot how many regretted to have signed the statement in The Lancet which condemned as conspiracy a possible lab leak of SARS2.

Quote:

Quote Tweet
Vincent Racaniello
@profvrr
· 58m
One of the co-signers of the letter to Science asking for more investigation into the origins of #SARSCoV2 - Pamela Bjorkman - realized that the letter was a mistake. Read her letter to #TWiV at https://bit.ly/3zzX0AD - could not agree with her more.

Rossana Segreto
@Rossana38510044
·
3h
This is not a hypothesis, it's real. Some experts lied. It was not conspiracy to consider possible a lab origin for SARS2 and they knew it. Now they admit it. Shall we just accept that it happened? Why did it happen? Will this happen again in future?

Quote:

Tweet
Yeyo
@RealYeyoZa
· 3h
The issue isn't whether there was a lab leak or not.

The issue is that a viable hypothesis got branded as a conspiracy theory by prominent scientists with huge conflicts of intetest and the media enthusiastically toed the line without questioning.

A common experience in this case, just look at some of the posts in this thread trying to drag a CT into the discussion.

It's important as skeptics that we consider sometimes what gets labeled a CT turns out not to be. You have to be able to let some beliefs go and consider alternative hypotheses.

Quote:

Rossana Segreto Retweeted
Ian Birrell
@ianbirrell
·
15h
Another terrible piece in
@guardian
on this issue, still doggedly pushing the concept of conspiracy theories - this time by someone who is so ill-informed that he is unaware there is more than one relevant lab in Wuhan

Here is The Guardian piece, not sure if it has already been cited:
Opinion: Though it is newly respectable, the Wuhan lab theory remains fanciful

Quote:

But there is an essential caveat that has been overlooked – that two different hypotheses are possible does not make them equally likely. Occam’s razor is a general rule of thumb, an injunction to “keep it simple”; when confronted with competing explanations for events, it is usually sensible to adopt the interpretation that pivots on the smallest number of supplementary assertions and assumptions.

IMO Occam's razor would find the lab accident more likely given the enormous coincidence one needs to explain a natural spillover event. See the first Twitter quote in this post.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You continue to post demonstrating expertise you clearly do not have.

Neither RmYN02 nor RacCS203 use ACE2 for entering their target cell. This is right out of the paper and even in the graphic I provided.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The authors' credentials:
Rossana Segreto
University of Innsbruck | UIBK · Institute of Microbiology
PhD

Yuri Deigin,MBA...

Delgin has literally never published a peer reviewed paper on any other subject, at least not one that shows up in Google Scholar. Segreto is listed on the university website as a Technical assistant though that could just be a translation issue. She has previously published peer reviewed papers on fungus, nothing on virology.

This screams woo peddlers.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

... to which the authors responded:There are no valid points of criticism in Tyshkovskiy and Panchin’s response (10.1002/bies.202000325) to our paper “The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin” (DOI: 10.1002/bies.202000240)

Perhaps you can comment intelligently regarding the peer review and the rebuttal?

LOL

So they are saying "RaTG13 wasn't used to create chimera virus, they used some unidentified direct ancestor instead!"

This mean the "real" virus "they" experimented with still needs to be "found", so how exactly can they show how Covid needed a laboratory to hybridize it to turn it into Covid? This makes absolutely no sense.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even your Google skills fail you, lomiller.

Here's one: Unexpected novel Merbecovirus discoveries in agricultural sequencing datasets from Wuhan, China

Quote:

In this study we document the unexpected discovery of multiple coronaviruses and a BSL-3 pathogen in agricultural cotton and rice sequencing datasets. In particular, we have identified a novel HKU5-related Merbecovirus in a cotton dataset sequenced by the Huazhong Agricultural University in 2017. We have also found an infectious clone sequence containing a novel HKU4-related Merbecovirus related to MERS coronavirus in a rice dataset sequenced by the Huazhong Agricultural University in early 2020. Another HKU5-related Merbecovirus, as well as Japanese encephalitis virus, were identified in a cotton dataset sequenced by the Huazhong Agricultural University in 2018. An HKU3-related Betacoronavirus was found in a Mus musculus sequencing dataset from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2017. Finally, a SARS-WIV1-like Betacoronavirus was found in a rice dataset sequenced by the Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University in 2017. Using the contaminating reads we have extracted from the above datasets, we were able to assemble complete genomes of two novel coronaviruses which we disclose herein. In light of our findings, we raise concerns about biosafety protocol breaches, as indicated by our discovery of multiple dangerous human pathogens in agricultural sequencing laboratories in Wuhan and Fouzou City, China.

Here's an essay he wrote over a year ago: Lab-Made? SARS-CoV-2 Genealogy Through the Lens of Gain-of-Function Research

Maybe it will help people understand his current paper with Sergeto.


As for your backbone argument you are simply repeating Andersen without addressing additional papers:

The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2

Quote:

However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2.

It's the same squirrel argument: discuss one lab accident possibility as if no others are possible.


Here's an earlier paper from Segreto and Deigin: The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin

Quote:

In order to evaluate the emergence potential of novel CoVs, researchers have created a number of chimeric CoVs, consisting of bat CoV backbones, normally unable to infect human cells, whose spike proteins were replaced by those from CoVs compatible with human ACE2. These chimeras were meant to simulate recombination events that might occur in nature.[19, 20] Such gain-of-function experiments have raised a number of biosafety concerns and stirred controversy among researchers and the general public. One of the main arguments in favor of gain-of-function studies is the need to be prepared with an arsenal of drugs and vaccines for the next pandemic.[21] By contrast, one of the main arguments against them is that the next pandemic itself could be caused by those experiments, due to the risk of lab escape.[22, 23]...

Synthetically generating diverse panels of potential pre-emergent CoVs was declared a goal of active grants for the EcoHealth Alliance, which funded some of such research at WIV, in collaboration with laboratories in the USA and other international partners.viii...

The history of past research has been brought up already:

Quote:

n 2008, the Baric group at the University of North Carolina (UNC) took the WIV research one step further: instead of using human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) pseudo-viruses with bat CoV spike proteins, a live chimeric CoV was created. Following the experiments of their 2007 WIV colleagues, the Baric group used a bat SARS-like CoV as a backbone and replaced its RBD with the RBD from human SARS.[30]

In 2015, the Shi and Baric groups joined forces and published probably the most famous gain-of-function virology paper, which described the creation of another synthetic chimeric virus.[19] This time the RBD of a mouse-adapted SARS backbone (SARS-MA15) was replaced by the RBD of RsSHC014, a bat strain previously isolated from Yunnan bats in 2011 by the Shi group. In 2016, the Baric group repeated their 2015 experiment using the same SARS-MA15 backbone and the RBD from Rs3367,[31] a close relative of RsSHC014 also previously found in Yunnan by WIV and renamed “WIV1” after live culturing.[17]

Probably the largest reported number of novel chimeric viruses created was described in a 2017 paper from the Shi group at WIV,[15] in which the authors reported creating eight chimeric viruses using WIV1 as a backbone and transplanting into it various RBDs from bat SARS-like viruses. These viruses were collected over a span of 5 years from the same cave near Kunming, Yunnan Province, where the Shi group originally found Rs3367 and RsSHC014. Only two of the eight live chimeric viruses were successfully rescued, and those two strains were found to possess the ability to bind to the human ACE2 receptor, as confirmed by experiments in hACE2-expressing HeLa cells and RT-PCR quantification of viral RNA.

Lots of evidence of what they were working on at the WIV before a whole bunch of material was withdrawn from public view. You appear to be asking for evidence when we know the Chinese government isn't allowing researchers to look.

So claiming [look—squirrel] XYZ couldn't possibly be anything but natural is a failed argument.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Jon Stewart on the Colbert Show tonight weighs in on the side that it's too much of a coincidence to have not come from the lab. He might be a lay person but the man is smart ... and funny.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Colbert is not well informed. He put forth the idea that the WIV was there because the bats were there.


The second half:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Jon Stewart on the Colbert Show tonight weighs in on the side that it's too much of a coincidence to have not come from the lab. He might be a lay person but the man is smart ... and funny.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Colbert is not well informed. He put forth the idea that the WIV was there because the bats were there.


The second half:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

So basically Stewart is smart because he "agrees" with you and Colbert is not because he doesn't.

But yeah, you're not wedded to this idea at all.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Jon Stewart on the Colbert Show tonight weighs in on the side that it's too much of a coincidence to have not come from the lab. He might be a lay person but the man is smart ... and funny.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Colbert is not well informed. He put forth the idea that the WIV was there because the bats were there.


The second half:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Ahhhh...comedy!

There's more where that came from...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It's comedy!

[Steve]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Ahhhh...comedy!

There's more where that came from...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It's comedy!

Hey! Comedian sees a coincidence, and riffs off it on tv! That's gotta be real evidence for.......something?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Steve

Hey! Comedian sees a coincidence, and riffs off it on tv! That's gotta be real evidence for.......something?

It's evidence the 'too much of a coincidence' hypothesis is being circulated in the public square as opposed to the attempt by Daszak and his ilk to snuff out that discussion.

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's evidence the 'too much of a coincidence' hypothesis is being circulated in the public square

So what if it is? Lots of ideas are "being circulated in the public square". Some of them are quite crazy. That an idea is being circulated in the public square just means it is being circulated in the public square, nothing else.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

So what if it is? Lots of ideas are "being circulated in the public square". Some of them are quite crazy. That an idea is being circulated in the public square just means it is being circulated in the public square, nothing else.

Right, it's the equivalent of "many people say...".

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

So what if it is? Lots of ideas are "being circulated in the public square". Some of them are quite crazy. That an idea is being circulated in the public square just means it is being circulated in the public square, nothing else.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Right, it's the equivalent of "many people say...".

Come on guys. Are you so detached from reality that you don't know that the "public square" includes Fauci, Tedros, and the leaders of the G7? Your hatred of this idea doesn't seem grounded in reality. This idea is not considered crazy by the most credible experts there are.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Come on guys. Are you so detached from reality that you don't know that the "public square" includes Fauci, Tedros, and the leaders of the G7? Your hatred of this idea doesn't seem grounded in reality. This idea is not considered crazy by the most credible experts there are.

Thank you for trying to bring this back to a relevant discussion.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Come on guys. Are you so detached from reality that you don't know that the "public square" includes Fauci, Tedros, and the leaders of the G7? Your hatred of this idea doesn't seem grounded in reality. This idea is not considered crazy by the most credible experts there are.

But, you don't understand! If we can't convince people that one of the two equally plausible explanations for the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is totally outrageous and crazy, people might say nasty things about China and the U.S. and even... science itself! You can't expect people to have a balanced perspective on economic turmoil and three or four million casualties. They'll over-react in totally absurd ways like "maybe that kind of research should be restricted more." Can you imagine?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Are you so detached from reality that you don't know that the "public square" includes Fauci, Tedros, and the leaders of the G7?

What's "reality" got to do with this? "The public square" could be anyone, so sure it includes Fauci. That's trivial and worthless.

Quote:

Your hatred of this idea doesn't seem grounded in reality.

What hatred? Why are you lying?

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Come on guys. Are you so detached from reality that you don't know that the "public square" includes Fauci, Tedros, and the leaders of the G7? Your hatred of this idea doesn't seem grounded in reality. This idea is not considered crazy by the most credible experts there are.

What a strange response to what I said. Skeptic Ginger said that Jon Stewart's piece on the lab leak hypothesis was evidence that the idea was "circulating in the public square". I mistakenly assumed that that was somehow relevant to the discussion and just pointed out that something being in the public square means nothing, lots of ideas, good, bad and ugly, "circulate in the public square" and it doesn't mean anything in itself about the idea.

And now I'm being accused of having "hatred of the idea" of the lab leak hypothesis for pointing this out? I definitely don't hate the idea, I'm not sure how anything I've posted could lead to that conclusion, I just don't find it at all compelling.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Uh, Fauci is trivial and worthless? Did you not understand that I was citing people who think this is worth pursuing and not crazy? I didn't just cite him as a member of the public but a member of the public that agrees lab leak needs investigation.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Uh, Fauci is trivial and worthless?

No, I said that your POINT is trivial and worthless. Of course "the public square" includes Fauci, but Ginger said it in relation to Colbert's show. Why are you pretending otherwise? Who, exactly, do you think will fall for this?

[RecoveringYuppy]

@JesseCuster If you know that non-crazy people support the idea under discussion what is the point of mentioning that the public includes people with crazy ideas? BTW you didn't mention "good" in your original post. You focused on crazy.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

@JesseCuster If you know that non-crazy people support the idea under discussion what is the point of mentioning that the public includes people with crazy ideas? BTW you didn't mention "good" in your original post. You focused on crazy.

NO ONE is saying that the idea is crazy, Yuppy. Maybe if you guys stopped attacking strawmen we'd be having a discussion.

[RecoveringYuppy]

@Belz Do you agree that Fauci, Tedros, the leaders of the G7 and many other credible authorities consider the lab leak to be plausible?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

@Belz Do you agree that Fauci, Tedros, the leaders of the G7 and many other credible authorities consider the lab leak to be plausible?

Do you agree that I find it plausible as well, or did you miss that while assembling your earlier strawman?


Oops, I guess we've moved on from the "public square" argument, now that it's been blown apart!

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

@JesseCuster If you know that non-crazy people support the idea under discussion what is the point of mentioning that the public includes people with crazy ideas?

What's the point of mentioning that the idea is "circulating in the public square", it tells you nothing about the idea in question, other than it's "circulating in the public square"? That's all I was asking about, it's an entirely irrelevant point that adds nothing to the discussion. When I asked that, Ginger Skeptic posted this:

Quote:

So what if I posted it? What is the problem? Did I say it was more than that? I said Stewart was smart. He is. I said Colbert had facts wrong. He did. I added later Stewart also had facts wrong. He did.

Is this intended to open a discussion about it or to complain that I posted it? I want to get it straight before I continue.

The negative reaction to my posting it seems well over the top.

So it wasn't intended to add anything to the discussion. It wasn't intended to point out that relevant public figures like Anthony Fauci are discussing the idea, it was just an offhand comment that wasn't meant to add to the discussion. I got my answer to my question.

You've entirely misunderstood her comment if you think pointing out that people like Fauci are part of the "public square" is some sort of defense of what she said.

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

@JesseCuster If you know that non-crazy people support the idea under discussion what is the point of mentioning that the public includes people with crazy ideas? BTW you didn't mention "good" in your original post. You focused on crazy.

Now you're just being obtuse.

I merely pointed out that something an idea "being circulated in the public square" is entirely irrelevant to the worthiness of an idea.

I said that some ideas being discussed in the public square includes crazy ideas to point out that that it doesn't add anything to the debate about the idea itself, because discussions in the public square includes things that are crazy, so it's not meaningful to point out that something happens to be a public discussion.

For example, if the discussion was about anti-vaxxers, (I feel compelled to say that I'm not comparing the idea of the lab leak with anti-vaxxers before someone gets bent out of shape) and someone said that anti-vaccination ideas were "circulating in the public square" it would be reasonable to think that the person who said that was making a relevant point and it would be reasonable to point out that it's an irrelevant point because an idea "circulating in the public square" doesn't lend any weight to it. It turns out that I misunderstood Ginger Skeptic's comment, and she wasn't trying to add to the discussion, it was just an offhand comment that meant nothing at all.

I don't know why what I said was so contentious. Some people seem to be just looking for a bone to pick.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

What's the point of mentioning that the idea is "circulating in the public square", it tells you nothing about the idea in question, other than it's "circulating in the public square"? That's all I was asking about, it's an entirely irrelevant point that adds nothing to the discussion. When I asked that, Ginger Skeptic posted this:

So it wasn't intended to add anything to the discussion. It wasn't intended to point out that relevant public figures like Anthony Fauci are discussing the idea, it was just an offhand comment that wasn't meant to add to the discussion. I got my answer to my question.

You've entirely misunderstood her comment if you think pointing out that people like Fauci are part of the "public square" is some sort of defense of what she said.

In this case for more than a year the lab accident hypothesis was purposefully sold to the public as a conspiracy theory and the public bought it hook line and sinker.

While there were a few knowledgeable scientists objecting to that position, only in the last few months has the idea that there really was a valid lab accident hypothesis begun to interest a wider public including being accepted in broader scientific circles.

Rarely is a scientific matter subject to purposeful dismissal like this one was.

That Jon Stewart spent most of his interview on the Colbert show says a lot that this is now making up for the initial coverup.

If you think that adds nothing to the discussion then I suggest you reconsider in the bigger picture.

You might also want to consider the definition of 'public square' as a literary term. It is broader than the square in ancient Venice where the term arose.

https://thepublicsquare.com/

Quote:

The Public Square is a place where ideas flow and people connect through radio, video, podcasts, publications, music creation and publishing and live events.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Come on guys. Are you so detached from reality that you don't know that the "public square" includes Fauci, Tedros, and the leaders of the G7? Your hatred of this idea doesn't seem grounded in reality. This idea is not considered crazy by the most credible experts there are.

I guess that depends on how you define "crazy". It's considered on par with the hypothesis that the virus came into China on frozen food. IOW it's possible if you squint really hard but no credible expert sees any evidence it actually happened.

And that is just the "plausible" hypothesis that "it was somehow in the lab in some unknown host, but no one knows how it got there, no one cataloged, someone got infected but no-one knows who then that person went to 2 different markets and spread a different lineage of the virus in each one".

The versions where the virus was actually created by Chinese scientist has been debunked in the peer reviewed literature and it openly laughed at by virologists who actually study the virus.

If "it's not impossible" is the most you can say about a hypothesis you need to be very careful of giving it any credibility. There are natural well understood mechanisms for a novel virus to jump species. It's normal it happens all the time and it requires no special explanation. Meanwhile every time there is a pandemic we see conspiracy theories that "it came from a lab". When someone claims makes the extraordinary claim a disease outbreak came from a lab the first reaction from anyone with basic critical thinking skills should be "show me the evidence" and thus far no one has shown any evidence

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I guess that depends on how you define "crazy". It's considered on par with the hypothesis that the virus came into China on frozen food. IOW it's possible if you squint really hard but no credible expert sees any evidence it actually happened.

You've convinced me you've cherry picked yourself in to a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Do some open minded googling would be my advice.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

...
And that is just the "plausible" hypothesis that "it was somehow in the lab in some unknown host, but no one knows how it got there, no one cataloged, someone got infected but no-one knows who then that person went to 2 different markets and spread a different lineage of the virus in each one".

And the evidence for the natural spillover where it was somehow in the wild in an unknown host but can't be found, no one knows where it crossed over into humans, no one knows who the patient zero was...

You have some falsehoods there as well, there is no evidence how it got to one market and as for the second, no one knows that there was a second market.

Originally Posted by lomiller

...The versions where the virus was actually created by Chinese scientist has been debunked in the peer reviewed literature and it openly laughed at by virologists who actually study the virus.

"Openly laughed at"? Debunked in peer reviewed literature? I don't think very much of the literature is as of yet peer reviewed. Care to post a few links? Let's see what the criticisms of the paper were.

Originally Posted by lomiller

...If "it's not impossible" is the most you can say about a hypothesis you need to be very careful of giving it any credibility.

Originally Posted by lomiller

...There are natural well understood mechanisms for a novel virus to jump species. It's normal it happens all the time and it requires no special explanation. Meanwhile every time there is a pandemic we see conspiracy theories that "it came from a lab". When someone claims makes the extraordinary claim a disease outbreak came from a lab the first reaction from anyone with basic critical thinking skills should be "show me the evidence" and thus far no one has shown any evidence

No, just no.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can lab accident deniers answer a few questions about just what is evidence please? This is not a question of arguing what the evidence supports, just what exactly is being dismissed here as "not evidence".

Are papers published by the researchers at the WIV before the outbreak describing their GoF work with SARS CoV strains evidence one way or the other?

Are records of students and researchers at the WIV going to the Yunnan bat caves to collect specimens of SARS CoV strains evidence?

Is the fact the Chinese government quashed genome files just prior to the recognized cases evidence, whether or not one believes the timing puts the evidence's value in doubt?

Would the fact the Chinese government made purchases of massive amounts of PPE at the beginning of the pandemic evidence if it can be shown the orders were first made before any recognized cases? The orders are well documented including the US supplying PPE and ventilators at a time we needed them here, but I'm still looking for the initial order dates.

Is a long list of lab accidents at the WIV and a complaint there wasn't enough trained staff for the level 4 biosecurity just before the pandemic evidence?

Is the location of the pandemic's beginning in Wuhan near the WIV evidence whether or not you consider it is strong or weak evidence?

Is evidence of other inadvertent lab releases and near misses of pathogens evidence regardless of the number of these incidents?


If you find yourself arguing about the conclusions one can or can't draw from this evidence it is a sign you can't answer the question about what is or is not evidence. It would mean you are answering 'it is only evidence if you think it supports a particular conclusion'.

That should be a separate answer, yes it is evidence but here is why it doesn't support the lab accident hypothesis.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Can lab accident deniers answer a few questions about just what is evidence please?

I'm no denier, so I'll abstain.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'm no denier, so I'll abstain.

You've spent the last half of this thread (I didn't go back further than that) refusing to define what you consider evidence and dismissing evidence posted/cited claiming it isn't evidence.

Is it really that hard to admit there is indeed evidence supporting the lab accident hypothesis, even it not enough to convince you?

Why are you claiming you want a discussion then dismissing any effort others make to have one?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You've spent the last half of this thread (I didn't go back further than that) refusing to define what you consider evidence and dismissing evidence posted/cited claiming it isn't evidence.

Why are you lying? What possible benefit could that have for you?

Not only have I admitted that the leak hypothesis is possible and indeed plausible, perhaps even probable, but I didn't even once refuse to define what I consider to be evidence. How can you say that this is "spending the last half of this thread" doing so? And the only evidence I've dismissed from you is the evidence I've mentioned, and which you have completely avoided addressing.

Aren't you tired of using hyperbole and strawmen to handwave other people's objections? Don't you think it'd be time for you to honestly address these objections?

Quote:

Is it really that hard to admit there is indeed evidence supporting the lab accident hypothesis, even it not enough to convince you?

I never said that there isn't any evidence. Remember when I told you that you have circumstantial evidence? Wasn't that yesterday? How can you, with a straight face, now claim, for anyone here able to go back and read the thread, that I haven't done so?

Aren't you getting embarrassed at any point by your own antics?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

... Not only have I admitted that the leak hypothesis is possible and indeed plausible, perhaps even probable, but I didn't even once refuse to define what I consider to be evidence. How can you say that this is "spending the last half of this thread" doing so? And the only evidence I've dismissed from you is the evidence I've mentioned, and which you have completely avoided addressing.

... I never said that there isn't any evidence. Remember when I told you that you have circumstantial evidence? Wasn't that yesterday? How can you, with a straight face, now claim, for anyone here able to go back and read the thread, that I haven't done so?

OK, let's see.

Originally Posted by Belz...

... Excuse me, where is there evidence that it came from a lab?

Does that say anything about "other than circumstantial"? I can find no post where you defined what you consider evidence. Perhaps you could direct me to it. Nor do I see any post where you addressed the evidence you call circumstantial other than to dismiss it out of hand. Can you find one where you addressed the circumstantial evidence?



You asked me to prove the negative. Is that the question you claim I didn't address?

Originally Posted by Belz...

Nobody said anything about a final word except you. The tentative conclusion is that it came, as diseases often do, from an animal source. Do you or do you not have evidence that it didn't?
...

Now please quote where I said anything about there being a "final word".

Originally Posted by Belz...

Depends if there's any evidence either way. Oh, look! There's evidence that it jumped from bats to us. Gee, who'd have thought, eh?

Is this circumstantial or direct? Please post why you consider this direct evidence if you do and why it is more direct evidence than research papers the scientists working at the WIV and the record of what they collected from the Yunnan caves.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Why are you lying? What possible benefit could that have for you?...

Aren't you getting embarrassed at any point by your own antics?

More unnecessary snark. No, I am not lying and no I am not the least bit embarrassed about my posts here.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

OK, let's see.

Does that say anything about "other than circumstantial"?

Are you joking? That was almost a month ago! Is that all you found? You're a far cry from "spending half the thread" doing so. It's still a lie by you.

Also, that a post doesn't address the circumstantial evidence doesn't negate another post that does. Sheesh.

Quote:

I can find no post where you defined what you consider evidence.

You also found no point where I talked about the virtues of eating daily bananas, but why bring it up? Why would you expect me to do something like that out of the blue?

Quote:

Nor do I see any post where you addressed the evidence you call circumstantial other than to dismiss it out of hand.

Another lie. I didn't dismiss the circumstantial evidence. I said it wasn't strong enough to draw a conclusion from.

Quote:

Is that the question you claim I didn't address?

What are you even talking about? Where did I mention questions you didn't address?

Quote:

No, I am not lying

It's either lying, or you are incapable of understanding English.

[angrysoba]

so there is apparently a debate about the lab leak here.

Stephen Quay vs Daniel Griffin.

Vincent Racaniello says he was asked to participate but declined because he thought it was pointless to have a debate with people who don't know anything about viruses and said to Daniel Griffin that he shouldn't have participated either.

https://munkdebates.com/podcast/covid-19-origins

I haven't listened, but those for and against might be interested in it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Are you joking? That was almost a month ago! Is that all you found? You're a far cry from "spending half the thread" doing so. It's still a lie by you.

You weren't in the discussion in the first half. I stopped when I found that one.

What difference does it make how long ago it was? You said you never said it. You did.

Originally Posted by B

Another lie. I didn't dismiss the circumstantial evidence. I said it wasn't strong enough to draw a conclusion from.

Where is that post? I found nothing remotely like it.

Originally Posted by B

What are you even talking about? Where did I mention questions you didn't address?

It's in your last post, the one I was replying to!

Originally Posted by B

... the only evidence I've dismissed from you is the evidence I've mentioned, and which you have completely avoided addressing.

If that wasn't it then which post was it?

Originally Posted by B

It's either lying, or you are incapable of understanding English.

More needless snark.


If you would just address the issues you could save yourself pages of posts complaining:

the dismissal of evidence out of hand sans any discussion
and, giving more weight to the circumstantial evidence for a natural event than for the evidence for a lab accident

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

so there is apparently a debate about the lab leak here.

Stephen Quay vs Daniel Griffin.

Vincent Racaniello says he was asked to participate but declined because he thought it was pointless to have a debate with people who don't know anything about viruses and said to Daniel Griffin that he shouldn't have participated either.

https://munkdebates.com/podcast/covid-19-origins

I haven't listened, but those for and against might be interested in it.

I posted 2 cites from Quay early on. He did a statistical analysis that supported the lab accident and he mapped the first cases and found they closely followed the #2 subway line that connected the WIV to the airport.

I'm on my way out the door but I'll listen to it tonight. Thanks for the link.