4 ms·

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 qual

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.

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.