4 ms·

do you have any evidence to dispute that theory? that's the basis of the scientific method, proving hypothesis wrong, not assuming them right from the start. d

do you have any evidence to dispute that theory? that's the basis of the scientific method, proving hypothesis wrong, not assuming them right from the start. doesn't seem like there is a clear explanation of the origins yet (see outcome of latest who investigation). supposedly all options are valid until proven otherwise

mytailorisrich 6y ago
It's always difficult to prove a negative... When you put forward a farfetched 'theory' it is for you to provide evidence. Otherwise, following your logic, everything and every conspiracy theory should be assumed valid until proven wrong, which is ridiculous. Example: The Novichok poisoning in the UK happened about 7 miles from the only lab in the country that works on these things. The UK government is actually behind it and they are framing the Russians for it. Prove me wrong. Now, seriously, considering that bats gave us SARS and MERS, and that they harbour other coronavirii extremely similar to Covid-19 all over Southern China and down to Thailand, the overwhelmingly most probable theory is that the origin of Covid-19 will be bats, somewhere in Southern China. If you think that's not the case then it is for you to support your hypothesis.
- reuben_scratton 6y ago
  Re. Novichok, if there wasn't video evidence of two known Russian agents the Porton Down theory might be more plausible. But Porton Down says they have nothing to do with it and we should just accept their word as fact, just as we have to accept the word of the Wuhan Institute of Virology that there was no possibility of lab leak there. Or maybe given the global significance of Covid-19, and the obvious conflict of interest for WIV, and especially given that the original SARS escaped labs at least 6 times, maybe some independent auditing and investigation should be done?
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    > Re. Novichok, if there wasn't video evidence of two known Russian agents Well, it's expected that Russia try to spy on strategic facilities of other countries and on former agents who flipped, isn't it? (I'm making a point here) My point being, if we go down the rabbit hole of "everything is valid until proven wrong" as the person I replied to said then we just lose sanity, in my view.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

It's always difficult to prove a negative... When you put forward a farfetched 'theory' it is for you to provide evidence. Otherwise, following your logic, everything and every conspiracy theory should be assumed valid until proven wrong, which is ridiculous. Example: The Novichok poisoning in the UK happened about 7 miles from the only lab in the country that works on these things. The UK government is actually behind it and they are framing the Russians for it. Prove me wrong. Now, seriously, considering that bats gave us SARS and MERS, and that they harbour other coronavirii extremely similar to Covid-19 all over Southern China and down to Thailand, the overwhelmingly most probable theory is that the origin of Covid-19 will be bats, somewhere in Southern China. If you think that's not the case then it is for you to support your hypothesis.

reuben_scratton 6y ago
Re. Novichok, if there wasn't video evidence of two known Russian agents the Porton Down theory might be more plausible. But Porton Down says they have nothing to do with it and we should just accept their word as fact, just as we have to accept the word of the Wuhan Institute of Virology that there was no possibility of lab leak there. Or maybe given the global significance of Covid-19, and the obvious conflict of interest for WIV, and especially given that the original SARS escaped labs at least 6 times, maybe some independent auditing and investigation should be done?
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  > Re. Novichok, if there wasn't video evidence of two known Russian agents Well, it's expected that Russia try to spy on strategic facilities of other countries and on former agents who flipped, isn't it? (I'm making a point here) My point being, if we go down the rabbit hole of "everything is valid until proven wrong" as the person I replied to said then we just lose sanity, in my view.