3 ms·

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.
      - dekhn 6y ago
        OK. This sentence in the abstract: The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. that's not true. If you wrote a good article that was completely defensible and submitted it to a top journal, it wouldn't be censored. It's not like the editors of nature are just sitting around stomping on papers they don't agree with. The problem is that if you wanted to convince peer reviewers and editors to publish such an article, it would need to be absolute perfect- not a single detail wrong, not a single bit of politics, totalyl consistent with the observed evidence, and more likely than natural origin (which is a very reasonable hypothesis to start with). Very few of the articles I've seen that claim lab origin pass the basic technical tests. The editors of nature, science, etc, would love to receive a paper that actually made a good enough argument that there was a lab origin. that would be the scoop of a century.
        SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Please, let's not focus on some political points of the article (my personal experience actually confirms that going against the established consensus will hurt you carrier; there is a plenty of evidence in the history of science, when the scientists were ridiculed for being contrarian; check Zemmelweis, Cantor etc.). Please focus on scientific points.

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.
    - dekhn 6y ago
      OK. This sentence in the abstract: The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. that's not true. If you wrote a good article that was completely defensible and submitted it to a top journal, it wouldn't be censored. It's not like the editors of nature are just sitting around stomping on papers they don't agree with. The problem is that if you wanted to convince peer reviewers and editors to publish such an article, it would need to be absolute perfect- not a single detail wrong, not a single bit of politics, totalyl consistent with the observed evidence, and more likely than natural origin (which is a very reasonable hypothesis to start with). Very few of the articles I've seen that claim lab origin pass the basic technical tests. The editors of nature, science, etc, would love to receive a paper that actually made a good enough argument that there was a lab origin. that would be the scoop of a century.
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Please, let's not focus on some political points of the article (my personal experience actually confirms that going against the established consensus will hurt you carrier; there is a plenty of evidence in the history of science, when the scientists were ridiculed for being contrarian; check Zemmelweis, Cantor etc.). Please focus on scientific points.