6 ms·

'Unique fingerprints' in Covid-19 could only have arisen from a laboratory

20 points by hirundo 5y ago

tsjq 5y ago
https://archive.is/DcSAD https://archive.is/DcSAD
LatteLazy 5y ago
The daily mail is a few steps below Fox news in terms of accuracy and unbias reporting. They're quite literally the paper that supported Hitler. They're not a source of anything. Please don't post them here. (Edit:) Here is Full facts review of the claims (which apparently don't appear in the paper's peer review version): https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-claims/ https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-cla...
- junon 5y ago
  First off, I agree with your overall assessment. > They're quite literally the paper that supported Hitler. Okay. I get it. Hitler was bad. His ideas were bad. His methods were bad. We can talk about how bad Hitler was all day. But a lot of companies _back then_ had ties to the Nazi party. Things change, companies lay off and hire on, people learn. Let's try to eliminate this trend of disregarding anything someone says due to something that happened almost 100 years ago. IBM supported the Nazi party. They're now a leader in quantum research. Volkswagen is one of the largest producers in Germany and was literally created by them. They now actively support their LGBT members at work. BMW, same thing. Bayer manufactured a bunch of the chemicals used in the holocaust. Now they are a large producer of life-saving medication. There are many reasons not to like Daily Mail. Let's not reduce ourselves to obsolete association just to cop-out of an otherwise valid point.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    The reason I usually include "the paper that supported Hitler" is that I don't think the daily mail have changed. They sell the exact same racist, xenophobic BS they did back then today. Its like if IBM refused to make anything except for holocaust management tech... Maybe its unhelpful? It just amazes me anyone will touch the DM with a barge pole...
    - junon 5y ago
      > They sell the exact same racist, xenophobic BS they did back then today. Can you cite these claims?
      - TomWhitwell 5y ago
        https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-and-mail-named-in-european-commission-report-claiming-tabloids-push-hate-speech/ https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-and-mail-named-in-europea...
      - ReflectedImage 5y ago
        In the UK it is widely known to be utter trash. Here's a song about it written in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI Song's punchline: "It's absolutely true because I read about it in the daily mail /s"
  - dTal 5y ago
    Bayer made lifesaving medicine back then too. Bayer's crime was of corporate amorality and I see no evidence that they have changed at all in that regard. As one of the world's largest chemical manufacturers I would be shocked if they do not still supply oppressive regimes - maybe even are inching into being one themselves, given their acquisition of Monsanto.
    - junon 5y ago
      > I would be shocked if they do not still supply oppressive regimes This is speculation - you have no sources to back this up.
      - dTal 5y ago
        Given the well-documented tendency of large corporations - and this corporation in particular - to not give two shits about ethics, I'm not entirely sure which direction the burden of proof lies. However they are certainly supplying China, a regime widely acknowledged to be committing genocide. Whether their chemicals are directly used for genocidal purposes seems academic? They do not care either way.
  - frabbit 5y ago
    It is not just a case of "back then". The Daily Mail spreads misinformation and hate propaganda right now. It is by any definition a low-quality source.
- mxmilkiib 5y ago
  https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY "Fuck the Daily Mail" Also, the Metro, the free UK tabloid found on buses etc is also produced by the Mail Group, so I only use it to wrap my compost in for the street side bin.
- atatatat 5y ago
  I'm supposed to trust one of the masses that doesn't understand that bias and biased are two different words?
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    I think you're confusing your tenses? But don't believe me, click the link I provided before your comment. It's all there in black and white. Or just Google "the paper that supported Hitler". https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+paper+that+supported+hitler%22&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&sxsrf=ALeKk03oEYYJp4fVdlHu_ib7FRT3yaKPig%3A1622306599769&ei=J2-yYKa5LoimUITclOgH&oq=%22the+paper+that+supported+hitler%22&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAM6BAgAEEdQ9B5YgEFg90JoAHABeACAAeYBiAGYA5IBBTAuMS4xmAEAoAEByAEIwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+paper+that+supported+...
sneak 5y ago
Now I've heard both claims: that if this were lab-grown it would have certain "fingerprints" and it doesn't, and now this, that it does. I'm not qualified to assess either of these claims. I am leaving the variable set to undef for the time being until a scientific consensus emerges over months or years that isn't tied to some hot-button nationalistic agenda.
- blagie 5y ago
  I'm not qualified to assess one of those claims. The claim that lab-grown would necessarily have certain "fingerprints" was nonsense. We can create viruses just like the ones in nature. When those claims started coming out, I knew folks were lying. That made it much harder to trust anything else they said. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so in your words, I left this set to undef. My concern throughout this whole thing was how often folks in positions of power lied. My conclusion was that government officials lying should be a criminal offense, and academics doing so, a civil one. We need honest information.
  - evgen 5y ago
    > We can create viruses just like the ones in nature. This is simply not true. We have a limited set of tools that can be used to manipulate a gene sequence, a limited set of sites and sequences that these tools will bind to, and a limited set of changes that we know can be used to some resulting effect that we wish to accomplish. I think what we really need here are people who have no idea what they are talking about to maybe STFU. Listen a bit more and spend less time demonstrating how much you do not know. > My conclusion was that government officials lying should be a criminal offense, and academics doing so, a civil one. And what should be the punishment for ill-informed and internet commenters who attempt to deceive through either malice or ignorance? What penalty should we apply to your crimes against Truth?
    - zed88 5y ago
      Here is a video of Peter Daszak where he admits to the technology himself. https://youtu.be/IdYDL_RK--w https://youtu.be/IdYDL_RK--w
rubatuga 5y ago
Can anybody back up the claim that having four positively charged Amino acids near an active site of a protein is rare? Never mind, this article is pretty unreliable..
- dekhn 5y ago
  it is generally true that proteins won't have many charged amino acids (of the same charge) clustered in an area (it's not uncommon to have clusters of oppositely charged amino acids). But none of this could be used as 'fingerprint proof'.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
I wonder if the DM folks realize that even if the study is high quality and reliable, the fact that DM leaked it first just ads confusion to the whole issue (because of how low-quality the DM is…)
- atatatat 5y ago
  Disagree, honestly, DailyMail regularly has the best compilations of data and imagery for geopolitical fuckery stories.

20 points by hirundo 5y ago

tsjq 5y ago

https://archive.is/DcSAD https://archive.is/DcSAD

The daily mail is a few steps below Fox news in terms of accuracy and unbias reporting. They're quite literally the paper that supported Hitler. They're not a source of anything. Please don't post them here. (Edit:) Here is Full facts review of the claims (which apparently don't appear in the paper's peer review version): https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-claims/ https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-cla...

junon 5y ago
First off, I agree with your overall assessment. > They're quite literally the paper that supported Hitler. Okay. I get it. Hitler was bad. His ideas were bad. His methods were bad. We can talk about how bad Hitler was all day. But a lot of companies _back then_ had ties to the Nazi party. Things change, companies lay off and hire on, people learn. Let's try to eliminate this trend of disregarding anything someone says due to something that happened almost 100 years ago. IBM supported the Nazi party. They're now a leader in quantum research. Volkswagen is one of the largest producers in Germany and was literally created by them. They now actively support their LGBT members at work. BMW, same thing. Bayer manufactured a bunch of the chemicals used in the holocaust. Now they are a large producer of life-saving medication. There are many reasons not to like Daily Mail. Let's not reduce ourselves to obsolete association just to cop-out of an otherwise valid point.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  The reason I usually include "the paper that supported Hitler" is that I don't think the daily mail have changed. They sell the exact same racist, xenophobic BS they did back then today. Its like if IBM refused to make anything except for holocaust management tech... Maybe its unhelpful? It just amazes me anyone will touch the DM with a barge pole...
  - junon 5y ago
    > They sell the exact same racist, xenophobic BS they did back then today. Can you cite these claims?
    - TomWhitwell 5y ago
      https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-and-mail-named-in-european-commission-report-claiming-tabloids-push-hate-speech/ https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-and-mail-named-in-europea...
    - ReflectedImage 5y ago
      In the UK it is widely known to be utter trash. Here's a song about it written in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI Song's punchline: "It's absolutely true because I read about it in the daily mail /s"
- dTal 5y ago
  Bayer made lifesaving medicine back then too. Bayer's crime was of corporate amorality and I see no evidence that they have changed at all in that regard. As one of the world's largest chemical manufacturers I would be shocked if they do not still supply oppressive regimes - maybe even are inching into being one themselves, given their acquisition of Monsanto.
  - junon 5y ago
    > I would be shocked if they do not still supply oppressive regimes This is speculation - you have no sources to back this up.
    - dTal 5y ago
      Given the well-documented tendency of large corporations - and this corporation in particular - to not give two shits about ethics, I'm not entirely sure which direction the burden of proof lies. However they are certainly supplying China, a regime widely acknowledged to be committing genocide. Whether their chemicals are directly used for genocidal purposes seems academic? They do not care either way.
- frabbit 5y ago
  It is not just a case of "back then". The Daily Mail spreads misinformation and hate propaganda right now. It is by any definition a low-quality source.
mxmilkiib 5y ago
https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY "Fuck the Daily Mail" Also, the Metro, the free UK tabloid found on buses etc is also produced by the Mail Group, so I only use it to wrap my compost in for the street side bin.
atatatat 5y ago
I'm supposed to trust one of the masses that doesn't understand that bias and biased are two different words?
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I think you're confusing your tenses? But don't believe me, click the link I provided before your comment. It's all there in black and white. Or just Google "the paper that supported Hitler". https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+paper+that+supported+hitler%22&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&sxsrf=ALeKk03oEYYJp4fVdlHu_ib7FRT3yaKPig%3A1622306599769&ei=J2-yYKa5LoimUITclOgH&oq=%22the+paper+that+supported+hitler%22&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAM6BAgAEEdQ9B5YgEFg90JoAHABeACAAeYBiAGYA5IBBTAuMS4xmAEAoAEByAEIwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+paper+that+supported+...

sneak 5y ago

Now I've heard both claims: that if this were lab-grown it would have certain "fingerprints" and it doesn't, and now this, that it does. I'm not qualified to assess either of these claims. I am leaving the variable set to undef for the time being until a scientific consensus emerges over months or years that isn't tied to some hot-button nationalistic agenda.

blagie 5y ago
I'm not qualified to assess one of those claims. The claim that lab-grown would necessarily have certain "fingerprints" was nonsense. We can create viruses just like the ones in nature. When those claims started coming out, I knew folks were lying. That made it much harder to trust anything else they said. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so in your words, I left this set to undef. My concern throughout this whole thing was how often folks in positions of power lied. My conclusion was that government officials lying should be a criminal offense, and academics doing so, a civil one. We need honest information.
- evgen 5y ago
  > We can create viruses just like the ones in nature. This is simply not true. We have a limited set of tools that can be used to manipulate a gene sequence, a limited set of sites and sequences that these tools will bind to, and a limited set of changes that we know can be used to some resulting effect that we wish to accomplish. I think what we really need here are people who have no idea what they are talking about to maybe STFU. Listen a bit more and spend less time demonstrating how much you do not know. > My conclusion was that government officials lying should be a criminal offense, and academics doing so, a civil one. And what should be the punishment for ill-informed and internet commenters who attempt to deceive through either malice or ignorance? What penalty should we apply to your crimes against Truth?
  - zed88 5y ago
    Here is a video of Peter Daszak where he admits to the technology himself. https://youtu.be/IdYDL_RK--w https://youtu.be/IdYDL_RK--w

rubatuga 5y ago

Can anybody back up the claim that having four positively charged Amino acids near an active site of a protein is rare? Never mind, this article is pretty unreliable..

dekhn 5y ago
it is generally true that proteins won't have many charged amino acids (of the same charge) clustered in an area (it's not uncommon to have clusters of oppositely charged amino acids). But none of this could be used as 'fingerprint proof'.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

I wonder if the DM folks realize that even if the study is high quality and reliable, the fact that DM leaked it first just ads confusion to the whole issue (because of how low-quality the DM is…)

atatatat 5y ago
Disagree, honestly, DailyMail regularly has the best compilations of data and imagery for geopolitical fuckery stories.