5 ms·

I have now flagged this particular bullshit misinformation FIVE TIMES on HN. There is a group here on HN repeatedly posting this drivel and related nonsense. I

I have now flagged this particular bullshit misinformation FIVE TIMES on HN. There is a group here on HN repeatedly posting this drivel and related nonsense. I would have thought that Trump-style lies and propaganda would be beneath HN, but here we are. So what’s up OP? Care to explain why you’re engaged in lies?

jkhdigital 6y ago
This is a scientific research paper. If you think it’s BS then I eagerly await your point-by-point refutation of the scientific evidence presented therein.
- HelloNurse 6y ago
  It doesn't work this way. Given objective evidence of a political intent of anti-Chinese propaganda, such as the involvement of specific factions who want to blame China for the pandemic, it's perfectly reasonable to assume this text is "fake news", with only the form of a scientific paper. And on the other hand, we already know that building a custom coronavirus in a few months is feasible, if not easy; proving or refuting a plausible story about a synthetic biological weapon made by specific people in specific laboratories is a matter of espionage and investigation, not of scientific evidence.
  - jkhdigital 6y ago
    > proving or refuting a plausible story about a synthetic biological weapon made by specific peoople in specific laboratories is a matter of espionage and investigation, not of scientific evidence. Okay, fair enough, we'll call it forensic evidence. Either way, the arguments stand on their own merits. You can't dismiss a prosecutor's entire argument as "anti-defendant propaganda". The only people who would ever go to the trouble of building a case are the ones who believe the defendant to be guilty. Call it science or call it forensics, but the same principles of evidence and truth apply. Evaluate the argument on its merits.
    - HelloNurse 6y ago
      From a purely scientific side, the "principles of evidence" show a plausible story, competing with less extraordinary and also plausible options (like similar viruses mutating in similar ways, or transfer of genome portions in some other way than the few simple ones discussed in the article). The article contains apparently knowledgeable reflections about what is possible or more or less likely, not actual evidence; true evidence would have to be of a more forensic nature, and it would increase the usefulness of this theory from a way to irritate China to a way to find useful information about therapy and vaccines. From a more literary and psychological angle, the evidence of disregard for alternative explanations, if not bad faith, is strong enough to discredit the article and place it on the spectrum of more or less intentional falsehood between completely delusional crackpot pseudo-research and completely deliberate poisonous PR effort.
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        You probably need to just read the paper. It has very cold professional and neutral tone, lots of verifiable links and references. I mean, it really does not matter in what faith it is made, as soon as it checks out.
        HelloNurse 6y ago
        I fail to discern a "cold", "professional" or "neutral" tone. Scientific jargon is not enough: there is a lot of cherry-picking, fallacious reasoning and "because I say so". > The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. > the RaTG13 virus also diverted the attention of both the scientific field and the general public away from ZC45/ZXC21 > It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV-2—ZC45/ZXC21 connection. > This finding further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated > Even if we ignore the above evidence that no proper host exists for the recombination to take place and instead assume that such a host does exist, it is still highly unlikely that such a recombination event could occur in nature. > Importantly, this, and the other recombination event described below in section 1.3 (even more impossible to occur in nature), would both have to happen to produce a Spike as seen in SARS-CoV-2. > Strikingly, consistent with the RBM engineering theory, we have identified two unique restriction sites > Once the restriction sites were successfully introduced, the RBM segment could be swapped conveniently using routine restriction enzyme digestion and ligation. Although alternative cloning techniques may leave no trace of genetic manipulation (Gibson assembly as one example), this old-fashioned approach could be chosen because it offers a great level of convenience in swapping this critical RBM > The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation. Regarding links and references, how many are other papers from the same group, sock puppets, irrelevant material, bad research that remains a preprint for good reasons, and so on? For example: 8. Segreto, R. & Deigin, Y. Is considering a genetic-manipulation origin for SARS-CoV-2 a conspiracy theory that must be censored? Preprint (Researchgate) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31358.13129/1 (2020). 20. Singla, M., Ahmad, S., Gupta, C. & Sethi, T. De-novo Assembly of RaTG13 Genome Reveals Inconsistencies Further Obscuring SARS-CoV-2 Origins. Preprints, 2020080595 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202008.0595.v1) (2020).
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  https://xkcd.com/2217/ https://xkcd.com/2217/ The idea is widely considered by the scientific community to be false. Less than 1% of the community here is qualified to dive into the details. Implying that because something is a scientific paper, that if general readers can't beat it point for point, is deeply misleading. I think the paper is BS. It's funded by people known to produce BS. I cannot personally prove that its BS, but I'll lend my trust to more trustworthy scientific publications with no bad funding incentives. I'd prefer content like this not appear here.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    Here is one trustworthy paper, exploring subject of artificial origin of the virus https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340924249_Is_considering_a_genetic-manipulation_origin_for_SARS-CoV-2_a_conspiracy_theory_that_must_be_censored https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340924249_Is_consid...
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      Ah yes, this non peer reviewed, preprint, by someone who studies fungus instead of viruses, and states that while there's no evidence something was man made, we can't prove this is the case. Case closed I guess.
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        It does not matter what precisely she studies - she is a specialist in genetic engineering, and the evidence she brings up is applicable across wide range of living organisms, as soon as it has DNA; what did you personally study? Computer Science? Electric Engineering? Case closed, I guess? Did you actually read what she wrote? Did not she explain why it is a preprint? If you _actually_ bother to read her paper, you'd understand what she actually wanted to say - namely you cannot deny probability of man made virus, just basing your argument on old preliminary research made in January. That research is like stupid statement by Knuth long time about goto operator, old, irrelevant but is become a consensus. And her motivation has nothing to do with China per se, her concern is danger of GoF experiments, which can lead to disaster.
- dekhn 6y ago
  This isn't a scientific research paper; it's propaganda masequerading as a science paper. I know it's hard to tell the difference, especially if the authors were skilled.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    Have you actually read it?
    - dekhn 6y ago
      I skimmed it, like most "articles" about articles that suggest that SARS was either intentionally or inadvertently released from a lab, and after a bit determined it was propaganda, not legitimate science, and did not continue.
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Each and every claim they make is substantiated by links to some other research, by unrelated and independent research. Most of people here are not virologist, molecular biologists etc, and probably have no say in determining if it is propaganda or not.
        dekhn 6y ago
        Sure, but it's probably not in anybody's best interest for those of us with molecular biology (biophysics in my case) PhDs to do rebuttals of papers like this in an ELI5 way, so that hackers can understand how to recognize propaganda.
        SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Baseless statements like it is "I skimmed it, and it is just propaganda" are not welcome in any educated conversation. If you cannot give a good explanation why it is "a propaganda", it is probably better to not say anything.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Nobody has ruled out this was a lab release. Experts when asked directly usually give a "50/50" answer as to natural vs. released from a lab. Ignorant people confuse 100% man-made with crossed or enhanced in the lab, but crossing is as easy as putting a pangolin and a bat in the same cage.

jkhdigital 6y ago

This is a scientific research paper. If you think it’s BS then I eagerly await your point-by-point refutation of the scientific evidence presented therein.

HelloNurse 6y ago
It doesn't work this way. Given objective evidence of a political intent of anti-Chinese propaganda, such as the involvement of specific factions who want to blame China for the pandemic, it's perfectly reasonable to assume this text is "fake news", with only the form of a scientific paper. And on the other hand, we already know that building a custom coronavirus in a few months is feasible, if not easy; proving or refuting a plausible story about a synthetic biological weapon made by specific people in specific laboratories is a matter of espionage and investigation, not of scientific evidence.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  > proving or refuting a plausible story about a synthetic biological weapon made by specific peoople in specific laboratories is a matter of espionage and investigation, not of scientific evidence. Okay, fair enough, we'll call it forensic evidence. Either way, the arguments stand on their own merits. You can't dismiss a prosecutor's entire argument as "anti-defendant propaganda". The only people who would ever go to the trouble of building a case are the ones who believe the defendant to be guilty. Call it science or call it forensics, but the same principles of evidence and truth apply. Evaluate the argument on its merits.
  - HelloNurse 6y ago
    From a purely scientific side, the "principles of evidence" show a plausible story, competing with less extraordinary and also plausible options (like similar viruses mutating in similar ways, or transfer of genome portions in some other way than the few simple ones discussed in the article). The article contains apparently knowledgeable reflections about what is possible or more or less likely, not actual evidence; true evidence would have to be of a more forensic nature, and it would increase the usefulness of this theory from a way to irritate China to a way to find useful information about therapy and vaccines. From a more literary and psychological angle, the evidence of disregard for alternative explanations, if not bad faith, is strong enough to discredit the article and place it on the spectrum of more or less intentional falsehood between completely delusional crackpot pseudo-research and completely deliberate poisonous PR effort.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      You probably need to just read the paper. It has very cold professional and neutral tone, lots of verifiable links and references. I mean, it really does not matter in what faith it is made, as soon as it checks out.
      - HelloNurse 6y ago
        I fail to discern a "cold", "professional" or "neutral" tone. Scientific jargon is not enough: there is a lot of cherry-picking, fallacious reasoning and "because I say so". > The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. > the RaTG13 virus also diverted the attention of both the scientific field and the general public away from ZC45/ZXC21 > It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV-2—ZC45/ZXC21 connection. > This finding further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated > Even if we ignore the above evidence that no proper host exists for the recombination to take place and instead assume that such a host does exist, it is still highly unlikely that such a recombination event could occur in nature. > Importantly, this, and the other recombination event described below in section 1.3 (even more impossible to occur in nature), would both have to happen to produce a Spike as seen in SARS-CoV-2. > Strikingly, consistent with the RBM engineering theory, we have identified two unique restriction sites > Once the restriction sites were successfully introduced, the RBM segment could be swapped conveniently using routine restriction enzyme digestion and ligation. Although alternative cloning techniques may leave no trace of genetic manipulation (Gibson assembly as one example), this old-fashioned approach could be chosen because it offers a great level of convenience in swapping this critical RBM > The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation. Regarding links and references, how many are other papers from the same group, sock puppets, irrelevant material, bad research that remains a preprint for good reasons, and so on? For example: 8. Segreto, R. & Deigin, Y. Is considering a genetic-manipulation origin for SARS-CoV-2 a conspiracy theory that must be censored? Preprint (Researchgate) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31358.13129/1 (2020). 20. Singla, M., Ahmad, S., Gupta, C. & Sethi, T. De-novo Assembly of RaTG13 Genome Reveals Inconsistencies Further Obscuring SARS-CoV-2 Origins. Preprints, 2020080595 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202008.0595.v1) (2020).
klmadfejno 6y ago
https://xkcd.com/2217/ https://xkcd.com/2217/ The idea is widely considered by the scientific community to be false. Less than 1% of the community here is qualified to dive into the details. Implying that because something is a scientific paper, that if general readers can't beat it point for point, is deeply misleading. I think the paper is BS. It's funded by people known to produce BS. I cannot personally prove that its BS, but I'll lend my trust to more trustworthy scientific publications with no bad funding incentives. I'd prefer content like this not appear here.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  Here is one trustworthy paper, exploring subject of artificial origin of the virus https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340924249_Is_considering_a_genetic-manipulation_origin_for_SARS-CoV-2_a_conspiracy_theory_that_must_be_censored https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340924249_Is_consid...
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Ah yes, this non peer reviewed, preprint, by someone who studies fungus instead of viruses, and states that while there's no evidence something was man made, we can't prove this is the case. Case closed I guess.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      It does not matter what precisely she studies - she is a specialist in genetic engineering, and the evidence she brings up is applicable across wide range of living organisms, as soon as it has DNA; what did you personally study? Computer Science? Electric Engineering? Case closed, I guess? Did you actually read what she wrote? Did not she explain why it is a preprint? If you _actually_ bother to read her paper, you'd understand what she actually wanted to say - namely you cannot deny probability of man made virus, just basing your argument on old preliminary research made in January. That research is like stupid statement by Knuth long time about goto operator, old, irrelevant but is become a consensus. And her motivation has nothing to do with China per se, her concern is danger of GoF experiments, which can lead to disaster.
dekhn 6y ago
This isn't a scientific research paper; it's propaganda masequerading as a science paper. I know it's hard to tell the difference, especially if the authors were skilled.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  Have you actually read it?
  - dekhn 6y ago
    I skimmed it, like most "articles" about articles that suggest that SARS was either intentionally or inadvertently released from a lab, and after a bit determined it was propaganda, not legitimate science, and did not continue.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      Each and every claim they make is substantiated by links to some other research, by unrelated and independent research. Most of people here are not virologist, molecular biologists etc, and probably have no say in determining if it is propaganda or not.
      - dekhn 6y ago
        Sure, but it's probably not in anybody's best interest for those of us with molecular biology (biophysics in my case) PhDs to do rebuttals of papers like this in an ELI5 way, so that hackers can understand how to recognize propaganda.
        SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Baseless statements like it is "I skimmed it, and it is just propaganda" are not welcome in any educated conversation. If you cannot give a good explanation why it is "a propaganda", it is probably better to not say anything.
redis_mlc 6y ago
Nobody has ruled out this was a lab release. Experts when asked directly usually give a "50/50" answer as to natural vs. released from a lab. Ignorant people confuse 100% man-made with crossed or enhanced in the lab, but crossing is as easy as putting a pangolin and a bat in the same cage.