IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Coronavirus

Closed Thread
Old 2nd June 2021, 10:19 PM   #881
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,377
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Are you referring to the "laws of physics" quote? Look back one page in this thread, that was a quote the Daily Mail said came from an exclusive interview.
Thanks for that.

Actually I tried going to the Daily Fail website and it told me that because of my adblocker I couldn't read their site.

Fair enough, from their point of view, but I would rather not disable it for them.

Thanks for digging up the quote then...

Quote:
The laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row. The only way you can get this is if you artificially manufacture it,' Dalgleish told
Anyway, my criticisms of the way it is expressed remain. If it is against the laws of physics not even the evil China-Daszak Illuminati will be able to create it.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2021, 10:24 PM   #882
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
I have adblocker on and I can read the Daily Fail.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2021, 11:07 PM   #883
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,377
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I have adblocker on and I can read the Daily Fail.
This is what I get...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Mail Ad blocker.jpg (72.7 KB, 5 views)
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 07:13 AM   #884
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
 
TurkeysGhost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 31,524
I see the consent manufacturing machine is firing on all cylinders.

Quote:
Author of Wall Street Journal “Wuhan lab” story wrote lies about Iraqi “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/202.../wuha-j02.html

This is tangentially related, but it's pretty shocking how people with a disastrous record of either lying or carelessly passing on misinformation seem to have no trouble getting their views printed in major news sources.

Being one of the people that lied about the cause for the Iraq War should be something that results in permanent exclusion from credible news agencies, but this guy has no trouble getting published in the Wall Street Journal.
__________________
Previously known as SuburbanTurkey
TurkeysGhost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 08:24 AM   #885
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,930
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post


And for those who keep repeating the pangolin as an intermediary species:
Binding efficiency of Covid-19 and Pangolin-CoV to human, pangolin and bat ACE2 receptors is detailed here.


There may still be scenarios where Covid-19's ancestor jumped directly from bats to humans but Pangolins or some other intermediary who's ACE2 receptors are more similar to what's found in humans

__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 11:11 AM   #886
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,577
As the Fail spreads the unfounded lab leak theory, the notoriously far-left Forbes states quite plainly that the lab leak is CT: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=7f1dbc87dd8c
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 01:03 PM   #887
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
As the Fail spreads the unfounded lab leak theory, the notoriously far-left Forbes states quite plainly that the lab leak is CT: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=7f1dbc87dd8c
Sorry this is tl:dr but if you are really interested you will read all of my comments.


From your link:
Quote:
... with the first major outbreak stemming from a wet market in Wuhan: the largest city by far in the Chinese province of Hubei.
Not where it started.


This is crap right here:
Quote:
... despite the lack of any publicly available scientific evidence to the contrary ...
The author cites 9/11, the Moon landing, and climate warming faux hoaxes as analogies. They are not analogous but it's easy to go there to trash the lab leak hypothesis.


Quote:
The other hallmark of conspiracies almost always involve some sort of guilt by association accusation.
Because you know, an outbreak in all of China that just coincidentally started next to the lab studying the very pathogen is mere guilt by association.


This is guilt by association:
Quote:
claims that it was engineered as a bioweapon by the Chinese government, go back as far as January 26, 2020.
Given that is not the leading hypothesis, it must mean all lab leak hypotheses must be the same. The author then spends three paragraphs discussing the bioweapon hypothesis.


He then makes this claim and honestly, where is the evidence supporting it?
Quote:
... the obvious consensus opinion: that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally, likely through pangolins as an intermediary between bats and humans, infected its first humans in 2019, and found its way to the city of Wuhan, where it entered the greater human population and grew into the ongoing pandemic.

After presenting an unsupported hypothesis citing out of date information, the author then goes on to dismiss the following:
Quote:
... there are some people for whom a few circumstantial facts stand out:
NAIAD funded EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn funded a study at the Wuhan Institute for Virology on research that could have added a spike protein, like the one found in SARS-CoV-2, into an ancestral bat virus,

the fact that leaks had occurred at labs before, and that the Wuhan Institute for Virology, the country’s only Level IV lab, was found to be following sub-standard protocols for a Level IV lab,

and the recent “bombshell” that three workers from the Wuhan Institute for Virology had the pneumonia-like symptoms of COVID-19 back in November of 2019, more than 4 weeks before the first official cases were announced and revealed.

Much further down in the article we come to this:
Quote:
From the virus’s genome, we can robustly conclude that the mechanisms proposed for how this virus would have arisen in a lab are all wildly insufficient to explain its properties. From the case records of COVID-19 and the behavior of the disease, it’s likely that the first cases in Hubei province occurred as early as October of 2019, meaning that the alleged infections among Wuhan Institute of Virology workers could not explain the origin of the very first cases.
One, there is a pathway the virus could have evolved in the lab and there is no evidence of said pathway in the wild. Kind of biased opinion of the author.

Two, no one said the 3 scientists were the first infected and from the reports we don't know when their first symptoms started nor do we know how long the incubation period was.

Three, Oct is not the fixed date for the initial spillover. In fact the author of this piece himself claims it started elsewhere before arriving in Wuhan though there is no evidence of that either.


Then we have Dr Shi's denial anything like that existed in her lab.


The author claims the virus could have been circulating in mild cases before the outbreak. OK, then how is it the author claims it started in Oct? Cherry picking to support the paragraph du jour?


Quote:
Indeed, in two-out-of-three simulations, the natural emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in humans would result in extinction of the virus before an epidemic ensued.
We know it emerged into a pandemic.

His most likely hypothesis has been discussed in this thread and among researchers cited: That of the virus jumping a number of times and dying out before becoming successful.

That still leaves a few problems. If that is the case, where is/are the closely related viruses? How did it not show up somewhere before Wuhan? And how did it show up in Wuhan with 2 lineages both in Wuhan and both well adapted to human respiratory tract cells?


His next couple of paragraphs actually supports a lab virus though he claims it is evidence against a lab virus.


Finally the author asserts:
Quote:
... there would have to be an enormous conspiracy. Dr. Shi must have been lying; other people in her group and at the Wuhan Institute for Virology must have been lying; people at EcoHealth Alliance must have been lying; affiliated researchers such as Peter Daszek must be lying;
For good measure he throws Dr Fauci in there which is ludicrous. He would have had no inside knowledge.

Could the people at the lab and Daszak all been lying? Absolutely. This is not the US or the UK. China controls very closely what its citizens are allowed to say and all of them, including Daszak have very good reasons to lie. They might be the ones held responsible. The authors believe that because these people were working to prevent such a pandemic they couldn't possibly have caused one.

The author says this about that:
Quote:
It’s like imagining the world of Fahrenheit 451, where the “firefighters” are actually arsonists, except for virology: where the experts in pandemic prevention are actively trying to unleash pandemics upon the world.
Notice the blatant false narrative? If it wasn't on purpose it must not have happened.


This doesn't support the natural spillover as the author claims either:
Quote:
All of the studies support the same conclusion: that once the disease entered humans, it evolved from there, with a single entry point consistent with every one of the subsequent cases.
"It evolved from there" and "a single entry point" are contradictory.


Quote:
Instead, the tactic we’re taking — accusing them of fraud without a shred of meaningful, direct evidence — showcases how thoroughly we’re letting fear and conspiratorial thinking cloud our judgment.
The Chinese have denied access to the information the investigators say they need. I don't know if I'd call it "fraud" (another false narrative in the piece), but there is a reason they aren't allowing anyone to see more than a small bit of information. You'd think they would want clear-cut exoneration of the WIV.

Quote:
If you wanted to call for routine inspections, and the enforcement of sufficient safety criteria across the board, there are very few who would be opposed to that.
Few in the Western world, but that is not the same in China.


I'm sorry but this is pure crap:
Quote:
But a call for a large-scale, outside investigation into Dr. Shi’s laboratory lacks the necessary evidence to motivate it. If any of the 18 scientists who signed the recent Science letter calling for such an investigation actually wanted to investigate the lab leak hypothesis in a scientific manner, they would simply write a research grant to do so. That’s how virology is routinely performed, and how scientific and professional misconduct in virology has been uncovered in the past.
We are supposed to think one can't ask for an investigation without evidence that one needs the investigation to get.

And more crap follows.


This is disappointing coming from a contributor to Starts with a Bang. Note he's an astronomer, not a virologist or even a medical contributor to Science Blogs. I should see if I can still log on to Science Blogs to comment on this piece.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd June 2021 at 01:04 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 01:09 PM   #888
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,577
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Sorry this is tl:dr but if you are really interested you will read all of my comments.
Except I won't, because you start with this:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
From your link:Not where it started.
Which is a false representation of what was said.

What was said is true - the first major outbreak was linked to the wet market. Not only does he not claim it started there, he specifically notes it didn't.

Your obsession with this subject is quite stark.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 01:19 PM   #889
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Except I won't, because you start with this:

Which is a false representation of what was said.

What was said is true - the first major outbreak was linked to the wet market. Not only does he not claim it started there, he specifically notes it didn't.

Your obsession with this subject is quite stark.
Yes "first major outbreak" linked to but without any mention of the cases not linked to any wet market which is a key problem claiming a natural spillover event.

Great excuse TA. I am so not surprised. Your citation doesn't support what you want it to support so don't look at why.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd June 2021 at 01:21 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 01:57 PM   #890
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
As the Fail spreads the unfounded lab leak theory, the notoriously far-left Forbes states quite plainly that the lab leak is CT: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=7f1dbc87dd8c
There is some pretty massive stupidity in that article. Why are you impressed by that article over experts in the field??
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 02:00 PM   #891
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Washington Post Corrects Year-Old Article Calling Lab-Leak Theory ‘Debunked’[

Though I can't blame them for the original article, Dump and his minions did lie about everything.
Quote:
The Washington Post has corrected a year-old article which dismissed the lab-leak theory of COVID’s source as “debunked.” The piece attacked Republican Senator Tom Cotton’s claim that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

The original article called Cotton’s hypothesis “debunked” and a “conspiracy theory.” The original headline from February 2020, “Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked,” was modified Tuesday to read, “Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus fringe theory that scientists have disputed.”...

The term ‘debunked’ and The Post’s use of ‘conspiracy theory’ have been removed because, then as now, there was no determination about the origins of the virus,” the editor’s note read....

Not all fake news is actually fake:
Quote:
Social media companies joined corporate news outlets like The Washington Post to discourage the lab-leak theory under the guise of “fact-checking.” Last week, Facebook announced it will no longer remove or flag as “misinformation” content referencing the lab-leak theory after doing so for more than a year.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 02:20 PM   #892
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Interesting, the author of the Forbes article left Science Blogs in 2017.

If I have this right, "Starts with a Bang" is now a blog under Forbes.

I don't see that the article is open to comments.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 02:41 PM   #893
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,577
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Your citation doesn't support what you want it to support so don't look at why.
It says exactly what I said it does.

As opposed to every single thing you've posted, which is 100% supposition, coincidence and claimed links, with absolutely zero evidence.

Like I said, it's abundantly clear that you're determined to push the conspiracy, going by the enormous effort and time you're investing in it, but feel free to call me when you have more evidence than the moon hoax. At least they have pics.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 02:52 PM   #894
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
It says exactly what I said it does.

As opposed to every single thing you've posted, which is 100% supposition, coincidence and claimed links, with absolutely zero evidence.

Like I said, it's abundantly clear that you're determined to push the conspiracy, going by the enormous effort and time you're investing in it, but feel free to call me when you have more evidence than the moon hoax. At least they have pics.
And yet the lab accident hypothesis gains more and more traction, not less.


I am invested, I find it very interesting and given I work in infectious disease, I think it's critical this not be swept under the rug with few or no measures taken to keep it from happening again.

Two lineages, well adapted to humans suddenly appeared next to the WIV which just happened to be researching SARS CoVs and related viruses. There is a no brainer here that the lab accident is the leading* hypothesis. That it refused to go away within the scientific community despite all the times it was declared a non-starter is testimony to the fact the evidence will win out in the end.




*Note I said leading, not confirmed.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd June 2021 at 02:53 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 02:58 PM   #895
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
There is a no brainer here that the lab accident is the leading* hypothesis.
I believe you should say your leading hypothesis. It's not the leading hypothesis in the field. It's also not strictly a ruled out conspiracy theory as multiple people in the thread are trying to make it out to be. Unless you're part of the Chinese government the mainstream opinion seems clear: Lab leak is not the most likely explanation but it is not ruled out, still on the table, and still needs investigation.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 06:04 PM   #896
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I believe you should say your leading hypothesis. It's not the leading hypothesis in the field. It's also not strictly a ruled out conspiracy theory as multiple people in the thread are trying to make it out to be. Unless you're part of the Chinese government the mainstream opinion seems clear: Lab leak is not the most likely explanation but it is not ruled out, still on the table, and still needs investigation.
Nope, I meant what I said. Many of the people who consider it an unlikely hypothesis were last year saying it was an hypothesis not even worth pursuing.

I am going by the preponderance of evidence, not the popularity of the hypothesis.

What are the key pieces of evidence for a natural spillover?
It's more likely.

There's no direct evidence the WIV was working with any closely related viruses.

There is a somewhat closely related virus in bats in Yunnan.

Maybe a bat virus crossed over to a pangolin virus and then to a human.
What else? There must be more. Feel free to add to that list.


What are the key pieces of evidence for a lab accident?
Is it really more likely when two, not one, ready to go lineages turned up in Wuhan at the same time?

Also there have been plenty of lab accidents so just saying a natural spillover is more likely really isn't much evidence at all.

What direct evidence of a spillover is there?

People keep repeating the pangolin as an intermediary source when there is less and less evidence for that hypothesis the closer it is looked at.
What else?
There's no evidence at all the virus was putzing along getting more and more adapted to humans before reaching Wuhan.

There's no evidence in the WHO analysis of surveillance for respiratory illness in China in 2019 that any unknown outbreaks of mild COVID-19 could have been there unnoticed or wrongly blamed on influenza.

The WIV was indeed working with live SARS CoV including in GoF research using humanized mice. Did Dr Shi show anyone all that, demonstrating none of it resulted in viruses close to COVID-19? No, she simply claimed she looked through her data and didn't find anything.

China has been clearly not forthcoming in the investigation. One might chalk that up to dislike of Dump, but Dump has been gone for 6 months now.

I know there are some people in this thread with expertise I respect. But until I hear a scenario how those two lineages, equally well adapted to humans just happened to turn up in Wuhan at the same time, then I have a hard time buying their assessments that the lab is unlikely because of X,Y,Z about the virus.

Coming into Wuhan via two separate wet market exposures lacks evidence that should be there.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 06:08 PM   #897
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Nope, I meant what I said. Many of the people who consider it an unlikely hypothesis were last year saying it was an hypothesis not even worth pursuing.

I am going by the preponderance of evidence, not the popularity of the hypothesis.
Note that you said "I". So you are speaking for yourself. You should use wording that makes that clear because you are not speaking for the entire field nor even it's majority.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 06:09 PM   #898
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,377
So, some interesting emails have turned up in Fauci correspondence.
(was this a hack of some kind or a FOI request? - sorry, not paid attention to that side of things)

There are some emails between Kristian Andersen, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins.

It looks like Andersen was asked whether or not he thought the virus looked engineered in some way.

Andersen says that mostly it looks natural but there are some areas which he finds odd and that his team would look into it.

I presume that they did this then came to the conclusion it was natural.

Link

Now, lab leakers might say, "See! YOU suspected it too!"
But Andersen's response is...

Quote:
As I have said many times, we seriously considered a lab leak a possibility.

However, significant new data, extensive analyses, and many discussions led to the conclusions in our paper.

What the email shows, is a clear example of the scientific process.
Link

Anyway, if anyone is contending that the scientists rushed to dismiss it without even analyzing it, then these emails show that claim is false.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 06:40 PM   #899
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I am going by the preponderance of evidence, not the popularity of the hypothesis.
Seems to me like your mind is made up no matter what the evidence says.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 06:47 PM   #900
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Note that you said "I". So you are speaking for yourself. You should use wording that makes that clear because you are not speaking for the entire field nor even it's majority.
Your cause is a noble one but ... I'm not sure my statement requires a consensus.

I said, "it is a no brainer that the lab leak hypothesis is the most likely scenario."

No one has to agree, and obviously only one or two other people in this thread might. But your attempt to water down what I said is just that, an attempt to water down what I said and meant.

Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 06:48 PM   #901
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I said, "it is a no brainer that the lab leak hypothesis is the most likely scenario."
So not only is it your opinion but anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot.

Very nice.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 06:52 PM   #902
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
So, some interesting emails have turned up in Fauci correspondence.
(was this a hack of some kind or a FOI request? - sorry, not paid attention to that side of things)

There are some emails between Kristian Andersen, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins.

It looks like Andersen was asked whether or not he thought the virus looked engineered in some way.

Andersen says that mostly it looks natural but there are some areas which he finds odd and that his team would look into it.

I presume that they did this then came to the conclusion it was natural.

Link

...
This is an interesting reply in that exchange: And it only took three days to go from "we all find the genome inconsistent with evolution" to "crackpot theories of this virus somehow engineered", "fringe theories", "conspiracy theorists".

What an epiphany! Then overnight became evangelists for zoonosis, slayers of heretics.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 06:54 PM   #903
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Seems to me like your mind is made up no matter what the evidence says.
Seems to me you're not reading what I'm posting.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So not only is it your opinion but anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot.

Very nice.
If I said that, post the quote.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 09:22 PM   #904
marting
Illuminator
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,763
Ran across this group called "D.R.A.S.T.I.C."

https://drasticresearch.org/

A motley group that seemed to have come together organically looking for evidence of a lab leak. Featured in the Vanity Fair article.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021...id-19s-origins

I haven't dived into the lab leak hypothesis but it's always seemed possible due to the proximity to Wuhan and my father's experiences as a bacteriologist in a state DOH lab. But I'm not anywhere near informed enough to have a strong opinion.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 09:28 PM   #905
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,377
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
What Andersen says in that email is this:

"...I do wonder if we need to be more firm on the question of engineering. The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case. Engineering can mean many things and could be done for either basic research or nefarious reasons, but the data conclusively show that neither was done..."

In other words he is making the distinction that you yourself have called for:

1.) The bioweapon idea of it being deliberately made is the crackpot idea.

2.) The idea that it had been altered through, say gain of function, is NOT a crackpot idea.

But he also says that neither the crackpot idea, nor the non-crackpot idea are true. It is a natural virus.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 10:14 PM   #906
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Can you clarify what you are reading in to these statements I'll quote. I'll provide some information I think I have, please dispute me if you think I've got misinformation.
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post

1.) The bioweapon idea of it being deliberately made is the crackpot idea.
I don't know of anyone suggesting bioweapon, so OK. But why do you point this out?

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
2.) The idea that it had been altered through, say gain of function, is NOT a crackpot idea.
Right. And I believe Fauci recently said that he is not convinced that the virus is natural so I believe this is still on the table but is currently considered less likely.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
But he also says that neither the crackpot idea, nor the non-crackpot idea are true. It is a natural virus.
Right, But I'd like to point out two things. One is that this is his opinion and I don't know what the consensus is. I believe the consensus is that this is considered most likely but there is no agreement that it rules out other possibilities.

The second point is that natural origin doesn't preclude lab leak. If the initial infection was at the WIV then both natural origin and lab leak could be true. There is the possible, for example, that there specimen collection protocols aren't strict enough.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 3rd June 2021 at 10:21 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 10:25 PM   #907
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,377
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Can you clarify what you are reading in to these statements I'll quote. I'll provide some information I think I have, please dispute me if you think I've got misinformation.

I don't know of anyone suggesting bioweapon, so OK. But why do you point this out?


Right. And I believe Fauci recently said that he is not convinced that the virus is natural so I believe this is still on the table but is currently considered less likely.


Right, But I'd like to point out two things. One is that this is his opinion and I don't know what the consensus is. I believe the consensus is that this is considered most likely but there is no agreement that it rules out other possibilities.

The second point is that natural origin doesn't preclude lab leak. If the initial infection was at the WIV then both natural origin and lab leak could be true. There is the possible, for example, that there specimen collection protocols aren't strict enough.
I'll post a copy of the email, so that it might make more sense in context...

The idea that they collected the virus and it escaped without having been altered is of course possible. Many things are possible. But there isn't any evidence of that yet.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Email Andersen.jpg (61.4 KB, 8 views)
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 10:28 PM   #908
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
I'm afraid I don't understand, are you claiming to be Kristian Andersen?
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 10:37 PM   #909
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,377
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I'm afraid I don't understand, are you claiming to be Kristian Andersen?
No.

Sorry, I don't understand your confusion or what you want me to clarify. I posted the email that he sent which I quoted from and also which attracted the comment that Skeptic Ginger posted.

Why are you asking me if I am him?
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 10:44 PM   #910
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Because I asked you for your thoughts on those opinions and then you simply cited his opinions as if they were necessarily yours.

My question was: "Can you clarify what you are reading in to these statements I'll quote."

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 3rd June 2021 at 10:48 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 11:20 PM   #911
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
RealClearPolitics: How Fact-Checkers Mishandled the COVID-19 Origin Debate
Quote:
While the precise origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, remains unknown, several fact-checkers and media outlets found themselves in an embarrassing position when a theory they had previously dismissed as "baseless" gained new attention from scientists. That theory holds that the novel coronavirus did not originate from human contact with an infected animal, but instead was leaked - intentionally or otherwise - from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. ...

For months before elite opinion on the subject began to turn, fact-checkers, media figures, and social-media platforms dismissed the lab-leak theory out of hand while relying on questionable evidence.

As an example:
Quote:
On Sept. 16, PolitiFact's Daniel Funke penned a polemical fact check of Yan's claim. He described the idea that COVID-19 originated in a laboratory as a "debunked conspiracy theory" whose exponents dissented from the "consensus of the scientific community and international public health organizations" on the natural origin of COVID-19. He argued that the virus's genetic structure precluded "the possibility that it was manipulated in a lab." Funke called Yan's claim "inaccurate and ridiculous" and awarded it the "Pants on Fire!" verdict. ...

Both PolitiFact and FactCheck.org added editor's notes to their pieces in May acknowledging that, contrary to their previous statements, the lab-leak theory could not be ruled out. PolitiFact went a step further and "archived" the original fact check, thus removing it from the site's database. "When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact's sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed," the editor's note reads.

More reversals:
Quote:
Many other outlets followed a similar pattern. As journalist Drew Holden has documented, Politico, Reuters, NPR, The Hill, BBC News, Business Insider, and Fortune magazine, among others, all minimized the idea that the virus leaked from a Wuhan lab as a baseless conspiracy theory, but all have now reversed course.
WA Po, CNN and the NYT can also be added to the list.


Nicolas Wade has been dismissed in this thread.
Quote:
The lab-leak theory's newfound credibility is due in part to reporting by Nicholas Wade, a former science reporter at the New York Times. Wade, who was cited in PolitiFact's May explainer on the virus's origins, wrote a lengthy piece in Medium on May 2 arguing that media claims of a "scientific consensus" on the natural origin of the virus relied on questionable sources.

The lab-leak theory's newfound credibility is due in part to reporting by Nicholas Wade, a former science reporter at the New York Times. Wade, who was cited in PolitiFact's May explainer on the virus's origins, wrote a lengthy piece in Medium on May 2 arguing that media claims of a "scientific consensus" on the natural origin of the virus relied on questionable sources. He contended that two scientific groups' statements - one in The Lancet and another in Nature spearheaded by Dr. Kristian Andersen - were taken as evidence of a scientific "consensus" but were "not at first examined as critically as they should have been."

And this applies to the most recent posts in this thread in addition to others:
Quote:
"The [Peter] Daszak and Andersen letters were really political, not scientific statements, yet were amazingly effective," Wade wrote. "Articles in the mainstream press repeatedly stated that a consensus of experts had ruled lab escape out of the question or extremely unlikely. Their authors relied for the most part on the Daszak and Andersen letters, failing to understand the yawning gaps in their arguments."

And look at this:
Quote:
According to internal emails obtained by the public-health-transparency group U.S. Right to Know, the Lancet statement was organized and drafted by EcoHealth Alliance CEO Peter Daszak. ... USRTK also discovered that four of the Lancet letter's signatories had undisclosed affiliations with EcoHealth Alliance.
One relies on another who relies on another: it's turtles all the way down:
Quote:
Both PolitiFact and FactCheck.org cited the Lancet statement as evidence of a supposed scientific consensus about COVID-19's natural origin, but neither mentioned Daszak's connection to the Wuhan institute.

Finally:
Quote:
Fact-checkers should avoid the temptation to treat claims around scientific theories, which are by their nature opinions, as matters of plain and objective fact. Scientific questions are settled not through derision but through open debate and an honest examination of the evidence.
The evidence will provide the answers if people will honestly leave politics and dug in position biases out of the mix.

No matter how many times I say I think a particular hypothesis has more evidence than the others, I hear back in posts here that I have my mind made up. Yes, I am posting evidence supporting the lab accident hypothesis and yes I did say it's a no-brainer that is the most evidence based hypothesis.

But the question is still open. At a minimum, no one should be asserting the now discredited claim (which is still being reported in opinions on the Net) that there is no evidence supporting the lab accident hypothesis. If you think that is a valid assertion, look at the link I've cited here.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd June 2021 at 11:22 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2021, 11:55 PM   #912
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,377
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Because I asked you for your thoughts on those opinions and then you simply cited his opinions as if they were necessarily yours.

My question was: "Can you clarify what you are reading in to these statements I'll quote."
I don't think I am "reading into" his comments. I am just stating them.

I honestly don't know what else to add.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2021, 12:27 AM   #913
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,874
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
What are the key pieces of evidence for a lab accident?
Is it really more likely when two, not one, ready to go lineages turned up in Wuhan at the same time?

Also there have been plenty of lab accidents so just saying a natural spillover is more likely really isn't much evidence at all.

What direct evidence of a spillover is there?

People keep repeating the pangolin as an intermediary source when there is less and less evidence for that hypothesis the closer it is looked at.
None of those are actually evidence of the lab leak theory, so if they're the "key pieces of evidence" then the case looks pretty weak in my opinion.

The first one is a question about the likelihood of a spillover event vs a lab leak, not evidence of the lab leak.

The second one isn't evidence at all. The fact the a particular thing sometimes happens isn't evidence that it happened in any given circumstance.

The third is a question about the evidence of another theory, not evidence of the theory being proposed.

The pangolin as an amplifier host may be in question, but the pangolin CoV virus is much more closely related to SARS-CoV-2 than the SARS-CoV virus you say the lab was working on, which puts into question the relevancy of the lab working on SARS-CoV.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 4th June 2021 at 12:32 AM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2021, 12:42 AM   #914
KayBur
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 45
I don't want to believe at all that some laboratories are developing viruses as a potential weapon. We don't live in Resident Evil, after all. Any weapon must be controllable, otherwise, it will bring damage to its creators. I believe more that the virus mutated under the influence of permafrost thawing. We do not know what diseases were thousands of years ago. By and large, we do not know the thousands of viruses that animals and birds carry. It is not surprising that viruses mutate in order to survive in new carriers.
KayBur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2021, 12:54 AM   #915
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,874
Originally Posted by KayBur View Post
I believe more that the virus mutated under the influence of permafrost thawing.
How does that work?
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2021, 01:20 AM   #916
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,377
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
How does that work?
If it turns out to be true, Iíll remember I heard it here first.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2021, 01:51 AM   #917
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
None of those are actually evidence of the lab leak theory, so if they're the "key pieces of evidence" then the case looks pretty weak in my opinion.

The first one is a question about the likelihood of a spillover event vs a lab leak, not evidence of the lab leak.
And there is no evidence of a natural spillover using these definitions.

Quote:
The second one isn't evidence at all. The fact the a particular thing sometimes happens isn't evidence that it happened in any given circumstance.
How does this differ from claiming a natural spillover event is likely? It doesn't.

Quote:
The third is a question about the evidence of another theory, not evidence of the theory being proposed.
I'm not sure which thing you are referring to.

Quote:
The pangolin as an amplifier host may be in question, but the pangolin CoV virus is much more closely related to SARS-CoV-2 than the SARS-CoV virus you say the lab was working on, which puts into question the relevancy of the lab working on SARS-CoV.
An amplifier? Where's the evidence of that? If you have been reading the thread the pangolin as an intermediator has been discredited for a number of reasons.
Not enough of them around.

None have been found with anything close to a COVID 19 virus.

They're not farmed because it's hard to do so, they don't reproduce easily.

And no, there is no better fit to a pangolin coronavirus.
Tell me which bit of evidence there is for the natural spillover event?

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 4th June 2021 at 01:56 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2021, 01:54 AM   #918
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93,887
Originally Posted by KayBur View Post
I don't want to believe at all that some laboratories are developing viruses as a potential weapon. We don't live in Resident Evil, after all. Any weapon must be controllable, otherwise, it will bring damage to its creators. I believe more that the virus mutated under the influence of permafrost thawing. We do not know what diseases were thousands of years ago. By and large, we do not know the thousands of viruses that animals and birds carry. It is not surprising that viruses mutate in order to survive in new carriers.
No one is arguing the bioweapn hypothesis. I'm not sure how your comments fit into the discussion we are having.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2021, 02:48 AM   #919
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 10,704
Originally Posted by KayBur View Post
I don't want to believe at all that some laboratories are developing viruses as a potential weapon. We don't live in Resident Evil, after all. Any weapon must be controllable, otherwise, it will bring damage to its creators. I believe more that the virus mutated under the influence of permafrost thawing. We do not know what diseases were thousands of years ago. By and large, we do not know the thousands of viruses that animals and birds carry. It is not surprising that viruses mutate in order to survive in new carriers.
It is the issue that this virus occurred where it was being studied.

I wont track it right now, but poster Rolfe is a notable researcher and clinician.
When foot and mouth broke out she said to her mother how lucky it was it broke near a lab that could analyse and track.

Woops.
It came from the lab.

Rolfe has better recall of the facts....
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2021, 06:29 AM   #920
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,874
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And there is no evidence of a natural spillover using these definitions.
I'm not arguing for either case, I'm impartial as to the source of the pandemic, just pointing out that a lot of the "key evidence" you're using in favour of the lab leak theory isn't evidence at all.

Quote:
How does this differ from claiming a natural spillover event is likely? It doesn't.
So it's not evidence in favour of either theory.

Quote:
I'm not sure which thing you are referring to.
I quoted what I was referring to in my post, the thing I was referring to was the fact that lab leaks of infectious agents sometimes happen. Here's the quote in question:

Quote:
Also there have been plenty of lab accidents so just saying a natural spillover is more likely really isn't much evidence at all.
How is this a "key piece of evidence" in favour of the lab spillover hypothesis? A "key piece of evidence" for the lab leak hypothesis is just you questioning that the fact that spillover events happen isn't good evidence in favour of a spillover event. If it's key evidence, then it's pretty weak sauce.

At best it's evidence that, absent anything else, the lab leak hypothesis is a possibility, it's definitely not evidence in favour of the hypothesis, anymore than the fact that sometimes people wear hats is evidence in favour of the hypothesis that I am wearing a hat.

Quote:
An amplifier? Where's the evidence of that? If you have been reading the thread the pangolin as an intermediator has been discredited for a number of reasons.
I never said that there was evidence in favour of the pangolin as an amplifier, I even pointed out that it's been called into question, I was just pointing out that it's a stronger hypothesis than one hypothesis that you have offered in favour of the lab leak, that the WIV was studying SARS-CoV and there's no evidence that gain of function research might not have turned SARS-CoV into SARS-CoV-2. The pangolin CoV virus that sparked the hypothesis is much more closely related to SARS-CoV-2 than SARS-CoV is, it's pretty much a non-starter of an hypothesis that SARS-CoV might have been altered via gain of function research into a virus that is genetically much closer to several known wild bat coronaviruses (there are bat coronaviruses which are 90-95% genetically identical to SARS-CoV-2, whereas SARS-CoV is 79% genetically identical to SARS-CoV-2) than the original SARS-CoV virus. Virologists have construct a family tree of related coronaviruses and there's simply no way to have altered SARS-CoV via gain of function research so that looks like it belongs on another branch of the coronavirus family tree alongside several natural bat (and indeed, pangolin) coronaviruses.

Quote:
Tell me which bit of evidence there is for the natural spillover event?
I'm not arguing in favour of a natural spillover event, just pointing out that a lot of the "key pieces of evidence" you're arguing in favour of the lab leak hypothesis aren't actually evidence in favour of it at all, and some don't even qualify as pieces of evidence of anything, they're just vague questions about the possibilities of one hypothesis vs another.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 4th June 2021 at 07:42 AM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.