7 ms·

Putting the Bannon label aside, this paper seems to be well written and proofread. The claims fell into the range of educated guess and reasonable doubts. EDIT

by ttflee 6y ago

Putting the Bannon label aside, this paper seems to be well written and proofread. The claims fell into the range of educated guess and reasonable doubts. EDIT: You may like or dislike Bannon and/or Trump, but I judged this paper using my only knowledge in biochemistry/molecular cloning from when I was trained during undergraduate.

markvdb 6y ago
> Putting the Bannon label aside, No. The Bannon label is the problem here. White collar way to start dumpster fires. This is malice. Knowingly and actively undermining public trust in the scientific method. Whatever works to make two stones fight.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  You are committing the genetic fallacy[0] by stating your argument in this way. A paper like this should be judged on its merits, not its origin. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
  - taylodl 6y ago
    Ideally, yes, but practically no. We are in the midst of a massive disinformation campaign aimed to undermine public trust in public institutions. It takes time to properly evaluate a paper in the manner you describe - and that's a key element of their game. Keep you distracted so they can control the narrative. No. We have to collectively decide to stop playing their game and shut it off at the source. Therefore our strategy must be to ignore papers from known bad actors.
  - markvdb 6y ago
    That would be absolutely true for those with unlimited mental bandwidth and time, large nations' intelligence services for example. If one wants my attention for something that looks like scientific writing, except for rare exceptions at my personal discretion, one will have to go through peer review - the main filter of the scientific method. Otherwise, the bin.
logicchains 6y ago
You don't understand! Orange man bad, "birds of a feather flock together", ergo orange man's associates are bad. Ergo anything they say or support must also be bad, it's simple common sense.
- wasmitnetzen 6y ago
  That's a stretch. Steve Bannon has earned his reputation quite well outside his (rather brief) association with Trump.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    Yes, for running conservative media outlets, and since 2016 there's been a concerted push from the left to tar any media supporting political views that aren't left-of-centre as conspiracy theories. He also commited fraud to enrich himself, but that doesn't mean every scientific paper connected to him is necessarily invalid.
- singemonkey 6y ago
  Or perhaps a non peer reviewed paper funded by an organisation that is rabidly anti-Chinese needs to have its claims scrutinised heavily.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    Dang, I have noticed tons of new accounts on HN in the past few months engaged in astro-turfing and personal attacks that don't contribute to the discussion and this one seems no different. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24479464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24479464
    - robocat 6y ago
      From hn guidelines: “Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.”
simonh 6y ago
I think knowing that this comes from people with a long and well established track record of intentional deception, propagating misinformation and exaggeration is useful background knowledge. As for knowledge of biochemistry, there is no new research here. None. It's pasted together from other sources. For example the discussion of the proteins ZXC21 and ZC45 comes form this article [1], which also presents evidence that the virus can infect and therefore could have passed to humans from mammals other than bats. In other words it's closest viral relatives might be in a mammal species other than bats, so in focusing on bats for the virus's nearest relative we might be looking in the wrong place. That blows a hole in this paper's thesis that the virus not being almost identical to the bat viruses means it must be engineered, so of course it isn't mentioned in the article at all. Nice cherries they're picking! [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135831/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135831/
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  In the words of Thomas Sowell, “virtually any belief, about almost anything, can be shown to be wrong if stated in a sufficiently simple-minded way.” You’ve stated the paper’s thesis in a very simple-minded way, so your argument means little.
- hajile 6y ago
  Yet somehow, it's a very close match (96%) for a bat coronavirus. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 Magically, that virus was allegedly discovered in 2013, but despite their claim that it killed 3 out of 6 infected people, they somehow "forgot" to mention it to anyone anywhere or enter the genome into any public databases. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-year-covid-trail-revealed-l5vxt7jqp https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-year-covid-trail-re... Even when you move away from politically-funded research, the story still stinks (well, CCP-sponsored research is still political).
  - simonh 6y ago
    These viruses circulate between mammal species. I said it's nearest relative might not be in bats, not that it has no relatives in bats.
singemonkey 6y ago
What does your limited undergraduate knowledge have to do with anything? It's really just one step away from a high schooler citing their biology homework as a source of authority. You also seem to think that proofreading a paper increases the chances that it's correct which (in my opinion) shreds your credibility.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  To claim that an undergraduate degree is just one step away from highschool biology homework is disingenuous. "Proofreading" a paper does, in some amount, increase the chances that it's correct. It's called peer review.
  - singemonkey 6y ago
    Proofreading a paper is absolutely not peer review, at least if we're using the commonly accepted meaning of the term 'peer review'.
  - AnnoyingSwede 6y ago
    Proof reading means reading the text and pointing out errors in wording, spelling and punctuation. Peer-reviewing would using the same fundamental data and redo the experiment/mathematics and hopefully come to the same conclusion as the original author.

by ttflee 6y ago

markvdb 6y ago

> Putting the Bannon label aside, No. The Bannon label is the problem here. White collar way to start dumpster fires. This is malice. Knowingly and actively undermining public trust in the scientific method. Whatever works to make two stones fight.

selfhoster11 6y ago
You are committing the genetic fallacy[0] by stating your argument in this way. A paper like this should be judged on its merits, not its origin. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
- taylodl 6y ago
  Ideally, yes, but practically no. We are in the midst of a massive disinformation campaign aimed to undermine public trust in public institutions. It takes time to properly evaluate a paper in the manner you describe - and that's a key element of their game. Keep you distracted so they can control the narrative. No. We have to collectively decide to stop playing their game and shut it off at the source. Therefore our strategy must be to ignore papers from known bad actors.
- markvdb 6y ago
  That would be absolutely true for those with unlimited mental bandwidth and time, large nations' intelligence services for example. If one wants my attention for something that looks like scientific writing, except for rare exceptions at my personal discretion, one will have to go through peer review - the main filter of the scientific method. Otherwise, the bin.

logicchains 6y ago

You don't understand! Orange man bad, "birds of a feather flock together", ergo orange man's associates are bad. Ergo anything they say or support must also be bad, it's simple common sense.

wasmitnetzen 6y ago
That's a stretch. Steve Bannon has earned his reputation quite well outside his (rather brief) association with Trump.
- logicchains 6y ago
  Yes, for running conservative media outlets, and since 2016 there's been a concerted push from the left to tar any media supporting political views that aren't left-of-centre as conspiracy theories. He also commited fraud to enrich himself, but that doesn't mean every scientific paper connected to him is necessarily invalid.
singemonkey 6y ago
Or perhaps a non peer reviewed paper funded by an organisation that is rabidly anti-Chinese needs to have its claims scrutinised heavily.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  Dang, I have noticed tons of new accounts on HN in the past few months engaged in astro-turfing and personal attacks that don't contribute to the discussion and this one seems no different. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24479464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24479464
  - robocat 6y ago
    From hn guidelines: “Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.”

simonh 6y ago

I think knowing that this comes from people with a long and well established track record of intentional deception, propagating misinformation and exaggeration is useful background knowledge. As for knowledge of biochemistry, there is no new research here. None. It's pasted together from other sources. For example the discussion of the proteins ZXC21 and ZC45 comes form this article [1], which also presents evidence that the virus can infect and therefore could have passed to humans from mammals other than bats. In other words it's closest viral relatives might be in a mammal species other than bats, so in focusing on bats for the virus's nearest relative we might be looking in the wrong place. That blows a hole in this paper's thesis that the virus not being almost identical to the bat viruses means it must be engineered, so of course it isn't mentioned in the article at all. Nice cherries they're picking! [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135831/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135831/

jkhdigital 6y ago
In the words of Thomas Sowell, “virtually any belief, about almost anything, can be shown to be wrong if stated in a sufficiently simple-minded way.” You’ve stated the paper’s thesis in a very simple-minded way, so your argument means little.
hajile 6y ago
Yet somehow, it's a very close match (96%) for a bat coronavirus. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 Magically, that virus was allegedly discovered in 2013, but despite their claim that it killed 3 out of 6 infected people, they somehow "forgot" to mention it to anyone anywhere or enter the genome into any public databases. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-year-covid-trail-revealed-l5vxt7jqp https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-year-covid-trail-re... Even when you move away from politically-funded research, the story still stinks (well, CCP-sponsored research is still political).
- simonh 6y ago
  These viruses circulate between mammal species. I said it's nearest relative might not be in bats, not that it has no relatives in bats.

singemonkey 6y ago

What does your limited undergraduate knowledge have to do with anything? It's really just one step away from a high schooler citing their biology homework as a source of authority. You also seem to think that proofreading a paper increases the chances that it's correct which (in my opinion) shreds your credibility.

ethanwillis 6y ago
To claim that an undergraduate degree is just one step away from highschool biology homework is disingenuous. "Proofreading" a paper does, in some amount, increase the chances that it's correct. It's called peer review.
- singemonkey 6y ago
  Proofreading a paper is absolutely not peer review, at least if we're using the commonly accepted meaning of the term 'peer review'.
- AnnoyingSwede 6y ago
  Proof reading means reading the text and pointing out errors in wording, spelling and punctuation. Peer-reviewing would using the same fundamental data and redo the experiment/mathematics and hopefully come to the same conclusion as the original author.