3 ms·

We needn't go to the margins of Bill Gates somehow creating corona virus. Here's some of the blatant lies and misinformation that came straight out of the supp

We needn't go to the margins of Bill Gates somehow creating corona virus. Here's some of the blatant lies and misinformation that came straight out of the supposedly legitimate leadership. * Masks don't work, and you're too stupid to wear one anyways (WHO and US Surgeon General) * There is no human to human transmission (WHO) * The fact that there is a biolab in the exact area where the virus started spreading from is just a wild coincidence you racist (media Cathedral) I have a hard time blaming people for going down conspiracy theory rabbit holes about Gates when all the people who should be setting us straight have no credibility.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
To be fair at least one of those three you posted is still a conspiracy theory, unless you have a source about the virus being man made - I don't think there's any evidence outside of coincidence.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I would highly recommend parsing the statements by Chinese media and WHO very carefully. They're using explicitly non-scientific squishy language to describe the whole thing. One example: >All available evidence suggests the virus has an animal origin and is not manipulated or constructed in a lab or somewhere else,” WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib told a Geneva news briefing. “It is probable, likely, that the virus is of animal origin. What the heck does that mean, exactly? It sounds like MAYBE it suggests the virus' genome was not explicitly manipulated with CRISPR. Okay. Was the lab growing virus in human cadaver tissue? Was the lab putting selective pressure on the virus in bats? Was the lab even studying the virus which had been discovered totally as-is in the wild? Make no mistake. There has been no blanket denial of the lab's involvement with the virus. Only carefully worded PR responses and calling you racist for asking questions.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    You're still not providing evidence for. There is evidence against: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.h... You do understand that the scientific method is couched entirely in current best understanding, right? We assume the theory of gravity is how gravity works up and can assume it's probably true until a better theory comes up. You'll notice they didn't mention the animal - can we then safely assume it's a moose flu? That's even better supported as they did confirm in the affirmative it was an animal. And the other lies you posted were said with 100% certainty - how is the use of probable more evidence of a lie?
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      I'm explicitly not making claims about the origin of the virus. The only "conspiracy" is that you're racist for demanding answers. Neither of your articles provides a blanket denial that the lab was involved in research that included the virus. It only makes some very narrow denials in non-scientific language.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        Well in that case that seems entirely philosophical, and entirely out of place with the other two claims, which can actually have results. But you do seem to be arguing for the theory as well.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        I ask you about A. You respond with B, a tiny subset of A. I ask you for the rest of A. Rather than saying something even as innocuous as "I don't know" you call me a racist. In the most technical sense you might not be lying about B. But you're definitely being dishonest with the presumptive accusation of racism. And you're definitely using deceptive language to avoid answering the question. And you've definitely destroyed your credibility on a scale equal to "Masks don't work."
  - snovv_crash 7y ago
    On the contrary, this is exactly how scientific communication works. Nothing is in absolutes. If you want absolute language look to religion.
jacquesm 7y ago
Nice trick to slip an actual conspiracy in with two things that are not.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Totalitarian China hasn't made any efforts to close its wet markets, which are the claimed source. They also have not blanketly denied the lab's involvement with the virus. They've only hinted in non-scientific language that they didn't directly manipulate the genome (with CRISPR or something). The conspiracy is by the media Cathedral for suggesting racism is the source of the demand for answers. I have no idea where the virus came from. But we're definitely not getting accurate info in this area.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Not getting accurate info is no reason to spread inaccurate info.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      I think I see our disconnect. You are focused on people questioning the origin of the virus as a conspiracy. I'm focused on the lies/credibility of the people in charge. It doesn't matter where the virus came from. The supposedly credible people haven't been answering honestly. First they gave very narrow responses, then they accused people of being racist for calling them out on the narrow, useless response.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        You don't attribute any of those comments to the WHO trying to get a handle on an evolving situation, and instead to deliberate lies, even though they have changed their recommendations as time passed? And you're grouping all these groups mistakes together when that's not really fair to the different groups.
        7y ago

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

To be fair at least one of those three you posted is still a conspiracy theory, unless you have a source about the virus being man made - I don't think there's any evidence outside of coincidence.

Consultant32452 7y ago
I would highly recommend parsing the statements by Chinese media and WHO very carefully. They're using explicitly non-scientific squishy language to describe the whole thing. One example: >All available evidence suggests the virus has an animal origin and is not manipulated or constructed in a lab or somewhere else,” WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib told a Geneva news briefing. “It is probable, likely, that the virus is of animal origin. What the heck does that mean, exactly? It sounds like MAYBE it suggests the virus' genome was not explicitly manipulated with CRISPR. Okay. Was the lab growing virus in human cadaver tissue? Was the lab putting selective pressure on the virus in bats? Was the lab even studying the virus which had been discovered totally as-is in the wild? Make no mistake. There has been no blanket denial of the lab's involvement with the virus. Only carefully worded PR responses and calling you racist for asking questions.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  You're still not providing evidence for. There is evidence against: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.h... You do understand that the scientific method is couched entirely in current best understanding, right? We assume the theory of gravity is how gravity works up and can assume it's probably true until a better theory comes up. You'll notice they didn't mention the animal - can we then safely assume it's a moose flu? That's even better supported as they did confirm in the affirmative it was an animal. And the other lies you posted were said with 100% certainty - how is the use of probable more evidence of a lie?
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I'm explicitly not making claims about the origin of the virus. The only "conspiracy" is that you're racist for demanding answers. Neither of your articles provides a blanket denial that the lab was involved in research that included the virus. It only makes some very narrow denials in non-scientific language.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      Well in that case that seems entirely philosophical, and entirely out of place with the other two claims, which can actually have results. But you do seem to be arguing for the theory as well.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        I ask you about A. You respond with B, a tiny subset of A. I ask you for the rest of A. Rather than saying something even as innocuous as "I don't know" you call me a racist. In the most technical sense you might not be lying about B. But you're definitely being dishonest with the presumptive accusation of racism. And you're definitely using deceptive language to avoid answering the question. And you've definitely destroyed your credibility on a scale equal to "Masks don't work."
- snovv_crash 7y ago
  On the contrary, this is exactly how scientific communication works. Nothing is in absolutes. If you want absolute language look to religion.

jacquesm 7y ago

Nice trick to slip an actual conspiracy in with two things that are not.

Consultant32452 7y ago
Totalitarian China hasn't made any efforts to close its wet markets, which are the claimed source. They also have not blanketly denied the lab's involvement with the virus. They've only hinted in non-scientific language that they didn't directly manipulate the genome (with CRISPR or something). The conspiracy is by the media Cathedral for suggesting racism is the source of the demand for answers. I have no idea where the virus came from. But we're definitely not getting accurate info in this area.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Not getting accurate info is no reason to spread inaccurate info.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I think I see our disconnect. You are focused on people questioning the origin of the virus as a conspiracy. I'm focused on the lies/credibility of the people in charge. It doesn't matter where the virus came from. The supposedly credible people haven't been answering honestly. First they gave very narrow responses, then they accused people of being racist for calling them out on the narrow, useless response.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      You don't attribute any of those comments to the WHO trying to get a handle on an evolving situation, and instead to deliberate lies, even though they have changed their recommendations as time passed? And you're grouping all these groups mistakes together when that's not really fair to the different groups.
      - 7y ago