Origins of Covid

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

....

Can you at least see why I don't the lab leak case compelling at all, if that's what constitutes "key pieces of evidence"? Where's the beef?

Until you point out why the natural crossover has more compelling 'real' evidence I see no use in defending my list.

We need a shared definition of 'real' evidence to communicate. You think it is one thing, I think it is another thing.

Just claiming you are only talking about one half of the debate isn't cutting it. We are weighing the most likely of 2 options.

This is the 4th or 5th time you've dodged the key issue, that of there being no evidence whatsoever supporting either option if you define evidence as not evidence.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That doesn't have **** to do with a CT. It means we are in for a whole slew of untrustworthy information.

Which makes it a bit difficult to reach conclusions about what's more likely, wouldn't you say?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

If you know why the lab was improving their protocols, then why not just say so? If answer supports the lab leak hypothesis, then you could just come out with it.

Why so coy?

Maybe you could review the evidence already posted for the lab errors before accusing someone of not meeting your needs.

Chinese Lab with Checkered Safety Record D

Of course this is from the VOA so maybe not better that the Global Times. Both are propaganda sites. But there are other sources posted here about the specific biosafety issues with the WIV.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Which makes it a bit difficult to reach conclusions about what's more likely, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, that was the point of my recent post: "it has become hopeless to find the truth at least for anytime in the near future."

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yeah, that was the point of my recent post: "it has become hopeless to find the truth at least for anytime in the near future."

Huh. I guess that was too cryptic for you. Wanna try again?

[angrysoba]

On TWiV, they are talking about this paper, which is on RaTG13.

I can't really say I understand the discussion, but they explain that when SARS-CoV-2 came about, the WIV BLASTed (which means to search it on a database, according to Brianne) it to find the closest sequence and it was then that they looked into RaTG-13.

It may be interesting for some people here:

https://youtu.be/NGo958fkFz8?t=3899

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Huh. I guess that was too cryptic for you. Wanna try again?

These one-liners that offer no substance to further info or insight into the origins of Covid are tiresome. I could put most of your posts in several threads on many topics and they would fit. Lazy.

Have you read the thread yet? Have you read any of the scientific papers yet?
I'd guess "no" by the fact that you offer no specifics in any rebuttal, but I could be wrong.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

These one-liners that offer no substance to further info or insight into the origins of Covid are tiresome.

I've given up trying to reason with Ginger, so I'm trying a different tactic.

Quote:

I'd guess "no" by the fact that you offer no specifics in any rebuttal

What rebuttal? Ginger is attached to this one theory and has nothing to offer to support it. There's nothing to refute. Remember the "pros" of the theory that were rightly ridiculed?

Quote:

I could put most of your posts in several threads on many topics and they would fit. Lazy.

Well you know what you need to do, then.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well you know what you need to do, then.

Done.

[Belz...]

Interesting. Ten years of seeing my posts and now it's too much?

Maybe you're attached to that theory a bit too much as well.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

.... Ginger is attached to this one theory and has nothing to offer to support it.....

Wrong and wrong.

Nuff said.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Wrong and wrong.

Nuff said.

I see you cut off the part where I remind you of the ridiculous points you presented in suport of that theory.

That is a very honest thing to do!

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Until you point out why the natural crossover has more compelling 'real' evidence I see no use in defending my list.

That's a frankly bizarre defense to criticism of your "key pieces of evidence". Unless I can defend a position that I'm not trying to defend, you won't defend your position against criticism?

I am criticising your stance, which I will quote:

Quote:

There is a no brainer here that the lab accident is the leading hypothesis.

And these are the "key pieces of evidence" you have stated for the lab leak hypothesis:

Quote:

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.

I've explained the reason why I think those "key pieces of evidence" just don't cut the mustard for the lab leak hypothesis.

For reasons I simply can't understand, you simply refuse to explain why my objections don't hold and why that evidence would lead you to conclude that it's a "no brainer" that the lab leak hypothesis is the most likely explanation for the origins of COVID-19.

I'm criticising your defense of the lab leak hypothesis because I simply don't see why it's remotely compelling, and you're not explaining why you've come to the conclusion that it's a "no brainer" that it's the most likely hypothesis.

Can you explain why my objections to your "key piece of evidence" aren't valid and why they lead you to believe that the lab leak hypothesis is such a no-brainer? Because I'm just not getting it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I see you cut off the part where I remind you of the ridiculous points you presented in suport of that theory.

I answered the excerpt I quoted.

That includes "nuff said". Sorry if that's not satisfying for you.

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

That's a frankly bizarre defense to criticism of your "key pieces of evidence". Unless I can defend a position that I'm not trying to defend, you won't defend your position against criticism?
...

That you won't answer the question defining what is real evidence says it all.

If you can't define it, I can't defend my statements.

[angrysoba]

In that last video I posted, Vincent makes an interesting point.


Someone: "Did you know that there is a Wuhan Institute of Virology right there where the virus was first found?"
Vincent: "Did you know that AIDS was first discovered in San Franciso in the 1980s, but that it had emerged in Africa in the 1920s?"
Someone: "Why are you defending China?"

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I answered the excerpt I quoted.

That includes "nuff said". Sorry if that's not satisfying for you.

That's what I just said: you're ignoring the ridiculous things you've posted.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

In that last video I posted, Vincent makes an interesting point.


Someone: "Did you know that there is a Wuhan Institute of Virology right there where the virus was first found?"
Vincent: "Did you know that AIDS was first discovered in San Franciso in the 1980s, but that it had emerged in Africa in the 1920s?"
Someone: "Why are you defending China?"

I don't know who this Vincent is but is that kind of stupidity typical of him and are you defending it?

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That you won't answer the question defining what is real evidence says it all.

If you can't define it, I can't defend my statements.

I don't need to define "evidence" in order to point out what's wrong with your evidence.

I'll explain again my objections to your "key pieces of evidence" for the lab leak hypothesis.

Quote:

1. Is it really more likely when two, not one, ready to go lineages turned up in Wuhan at the same time?

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

3. What direct evidence of a spillover is there?

4. 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.

1. This is a question about the likelihood of a spillover event being the cause of the pandemic, not a piece of evidence in favour of the lab leak hypothesis. I don't need to define "real evidence" for that point to make sense.

2. This is phrased as an objection to the idea that "a natural spillover is more likely" as evidence of the spillover hypothesis, thus is not presented as evidence in favour of the lab leak hypothesis, but an objection to a vague assertion about the likelihood of the spillover hypothesis. Even if you take the fact that lab leaks happen as evidence for the lab leak hypothesis, it's merely evidence that such a thing is possible, it's not evidence that it actually happened in this instance. I don't need to define "real evidence" for this to be understood.

3. This isn't evidence for the lab leak hypothesis, it's another question about the evidence for the spillover hypothesis. I don't need to qualify what I mean by the "evidence" for this to be self-evident.

4. If one proposed hypothesis for how the spillover might have happened (i.e. via a pangolin as an amplifier host) isn't panning out, then that is not evidence in favour of the lab leak hypothesis, it just means that if it was a spillover event, then it didn't happen with a pangolin as an intermediate host between bats and humans.

I can't make it any clearer than that. We don't need to debate what either of us means by "real evidence" to understand me.

You've stated that it's a "no brainer" that the lab leak hypothesis is the most likely explanation and these are your "key pieces of evidence" for that hypothesis and I've explained my objections to those as evidence that supposedly supports the lab leak hypothesis. I don't understand why you're so wedded to the lab leak hypothesis if that's what you think are the "key pieces of evidence" going for it.

If you disagree with me, then explain what's wrong with my objections.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

I don't understand why you're so wedded to the lab leak hypothesis if that's what you think are the "key pieces of evidence" going for it.

Oh, I've been assured that she's not wedded to it at all. I've even been put on ignore by another poster when I refused to play Ginger's game any longer and tried a different method of pushing my point through.

This is becoming ideological.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

In that last video I posted, Vincent makes an interesting point.
Someone: "Did you know that there is a Wuhan Institute of Virology right there where the virus was first found?"
Vincent: "Did you know that AIDS was first discovered in San Franciso in the 1980s, but that it had emerged in Africa in the 1920s?"
Someone: "Why are you defending China?"

Once again, another analogy fail.

And for the record, it did not emerge in the 20s.

Researchers trace first HIV case to 1959 in the Belgian Congo

It may have begun 10-20 years earlier still putting it in the very late 1930s.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

In that last video I posted, Vincent makes an interesting point.


Someone: "Did you know that there is a Wuhan Institute of Virology right there where the virus was first found?"
Vincent: "Did you know that AIDS was first discovered in San Franciso in the 1980s, but that it had emerged in Africa in the 1920s?"
Someone: "Why are you defending China?"

As an analogy no more relevant than the WMD analogy.

Aids emerged and prevailed in San Francisco due to behaviour of the locals.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Once again, another analogy fail.

And for the record, it did not emerge in the 20s.

Researchers trace first HIV case to 1959 in the Belgian Congo

It may have begun 10-20 years earlier still putting it in the very late 1930s.

Quote:

The origin of the Aids pandemic has been traced to the 1920s in the city of Kinshasa, in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo, scientists say.

Link

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

I don't know who this Vincent is but is that kind of stupidity typical of him and are you defending it?

His point, and it is not one that should be that difficult to grasp, is that just because we first discover something at a particular time and place, it does NOT mean that that is where and when it originated.

That is still something that needs to be discovered.

[RecoveringYuppy]

That's a seriously stupid way to communicate that point unless you're trying to claim some crackpot idea that everything we actually do know is wrong. Are you trying to claim that we should ignore what we do know about the origin of SARS_CoV2? Should we be considering that it's more than a century old? Are you trying to push the "it's just flu" agenda?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

That's a seriously stupid way to communicate that point unless you're trying to claim some crackpot idea that everything we actually do know is wrong. Are you trying to claim that we should ignore what we do know about the origin of SARS_CoV2? Should we be considering that it's more than a century old? Are you trying to push the "it's just flu" agenda?

No, Yuppy. You need to stop trying to come up with the worst interpretation of what people say and then assuming that is what they are saying.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Interpretation? 1920 is a century ago. Although since your source says 1920s it may be a bit short of a century.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Interpretation? 1920 is a century ago. Although since your source says 1920s it may be a bit short of a century.

I will repeat the point again...

Originally Posted by angrysoba

His point, and it is not one that should be that difficult to grasp, is that just because we first discover something at a particular time and place, it does NOT mean that that is where and when it originated.

That is still something that needs to be discovered.

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

No particular bone in this fight, but as someone who lives in Hong Kong, and is extremely aware of the capabilities of control that China has, there is literally nothing they would not do to cover it up in the still less than likely occurrence that a lab leak was indeed the source.

They are fully aware how it would turn the world against them, even more than it currently is.

In order to control that cover up, well meaning and professional scientists would be threatened or disappeared, their families would be threatened or disappeared.

This is not a western country or even Russia we are talking about. The state's control of the media and population within China's borders is absolute.

This doesn't make the leak theory any more or less likely, it just means that it would be way more easy to cover up than it would be elsewhere.

Edited to add: The Chinese state's control of personal communications is no less absolute. Websites, phone and email messages via all China's native services and also messages using non-Chinese apps such as WhatsApp are routinely removed and or censored, even in what would seem to us trivial cases. For example, messages from HK to Chinese WhatsApp users discussing the HK Local Election results, where the pro-government parties were thoroughly trounced, were simply not received by the Chinese recipients. If they go to all that trouble for something that was just mildly embarrassing, just imagine the lengths they would go to to protect something genuinely dangerous. Again, this is not supporting the lab leak theory, just pointing out that covering it up would be *easily* within the state's capability.

[RecoveringYuppy]

And, I'll repeat my point then, that is a seriously screwed up analogy to make that point.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Link

Interesting BBC vs a US source. I have no issues with the 1920s date then.

Still an analogy fail: apples and oranges.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

No, Yuppy. You need to stop trying to come up with the worst interpretation of what people say and then assuming that is what they are saying.

RY is right.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by GraculusTheGreenBird

No particular bone in this fight, but as someone who lives in Hong Kong, and is extremely aware of the capabilities of control that China has, there is literally nothing they would not do to cover it up in the still less than likely occurrence that a lab leak was indeed the source.

They are fully aware how it would turn the world against them, even more than it currently is.

In order to control that cover up, well meaning and professional scientists would be threatened or disappeared, their families would be threatened or disappeared.

This is not a western country or even Russia we are talking about. The states control of the media and population within China's borders is absolute.

This doesn't make the leak theory any more or less likely, it just means that it would be way more easy to cover up than it would be elsewhere.

Thank you. That is what I thought.

Sorry Hong Kong has been taken over by China. Hope you're OK.

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Thank you. That is what I thought.

Sorry Hong Kong has been taken over by China. Hope you're OK.

Yes, I am fine thank you. And as long as one does not rock the boat politically, or basically promote any form of democracy, day to day life is perfectly fine. Apart from some vaccine hesitation, HK has done incredibly well with the pandemic.

However, there is no getting away from the fact that HK is no longer Asia's World City and run under 1 Country 2 Systems, its becoming more like any other Chinese city as each month goes by. I would give it another maybe 5 years before the firewall and censorship will apply here too.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by marting

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

Interesting reading!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Samson

Aids emerged and prevailed in San Francisco due to behaviour of the locals.

Er... it certainly didn't emerge there.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Er... it certainly didn't emerge there.

No it travelled there and then spread because the locals engaged in specialised behaviour.
False analogies are a waste of time resource.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Samson

No it travelled there

Good, so we've established that you posted a falsehood.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Good, so we've established that you posted a falsehood.

Yes in fairness I started editing but something that mattered came up.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

By current discoveries I mean the stuff that makes a pangolin involvement highly unlikely.

Care to link these "discoveries". By this I mean I mean actual papers in real, high impact, peer reviews journals. Also note that evidence for a different intermediate host in no way rules out pangolins.

[angrysoba]

SGU talk about the lab leak hypothesis on their latest episode.

They point out that there is no new evidence despite all the recent media sensationalism about it.

Link

They also mention a blogpost by David Gorski in which he looks at the latest resurgence.

He is not impressed by the lab leak hypothesis.

Quote:

Bad logic and math aside, I’ve noticed that the lab leak hypothesis has definitely—shall we say?—evolved during the last year. Given the utter lack of evidence in the nucleotide sequences of SARS-CoV-2 for an “engineered” origin, the “respectable” people now claiming that the coronavirus came from a lab hasten to deny that they think it was “engineered” or a “bioweapon.” Basically, there are now two main versions of the “lab leak” hypothesis:

1.An engineered SARS coronavirus created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through “gain of function” experiments somehow escaped and caused the pandemic.
2. A natural SARS coronavirus stored and studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology somehow escaped and caused the pandemic.

I can say with a high degree of confidence based on existing evidence that the first version is so implausible as to have drifted well into conspiracy theory territory. The second is the version that “reasonable” people consider plausible, but there is no good evidence for either version. In any event, given how much these hypotheses have been discussed in the news as though there were some new evidence that now makes the “lab leak” hypothesis more likely (spoiler alert: there isn’t) and assaulted me on social media, coming from conspiracy theorists and non-conspiracy theorists, I just had to look into this issue again.

In particular he calls the claims by Dalgleish and Sorenson (that have been trumpeted by the Leakies here) Bull ******

He makes the same point I made earlier...

Quote:

If it truly “violates the laws of physics” to have four positively charged amino acids all in a line next to each other in a protein, then it would be utterly impossible to engineer a nucleotide sequence that could encode such a protein, because translation would fail! Seriously, how could any journal allow a review article to make such a nonsensical argument? It turns out that four positively charged amino acids in a row is quite common, a motif found in thousands of different proteins.

And...

Quote:

The key claim made by Dalgleish and Sørensen is this:

Dalgleish and Sørensen claim that scientists working on Gain of Function projects took a natural coronavirus ‘backbone’ found in Chinese cave bats and spliced onto it a new ‘spike’, turning it into the deadly and highly transmissible SARS-Cov-2.

They base their argument on, in essence, an argument from ignorance, with a bit of conspiracy theory added. Yes, it is possible to create genetic sequences without, for instance, typical restriction enzyme sites of the sort that were frequently used to insert sequences into genomes. However, it isn’t nearly as easy as Dalgleish and Sørensen make it sound. Basically, to them these nefarious Chinese scientists were supposedly so clever that they not only did something that’s not at all trivial but did it without leaving behind any telltale signs in the sequence of genetic manipulation, other than the ones that only Dalgleish and Sørenson “discovered,” such as the six areas on the protein that basically every other scientist didn’t find suspicious.

He also discusses Nicholas Wade's article that Leakies got excited by....

Quote:

Basically, Wade’s argument seems to be that because a furin cleavage site of this sort hasn’t been seen in SARS-related beta coronaviruses before it must have been engineered. The problem is that such furin cleavage sites are common in a wide variety of viruses, including coronaviruses, and that scientists already had identified plausible mechanisms by which it could have ended up where it did in SARS-CoV2 last year: