6 ms·

It seems that the most common response to arguments in favour of a lab leak is always to attack the messenger. First "It's Trump so don't listen to him", then "

It seems that the most common response to arguments in favour of a lab leak is always to attack the messenger. First "It's Trump so don't listen to him", then "Nicholas Wade is a racist so don't read him" and now "Ariel Fernandez is only writing a letter and someone anonymously complained about one of his papers once but they were never told what the complaint was actually about and the generic expressions of concerns never went anywhere". That's weak sauce. I think most of us don't care who he is, only whether what they say is true. The claims in this article aren't actually new anyway, it was all covered in Wade's article already. So if it's wrong, let's hear why. That would certainly be interesting.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
DDGing his name and institute gets me here: http://www.arielfernandez.net/daruma-institute2.html http://www.arielfernandez.net/daruma-institute2.html Yeah, I can't tell if the biology paper is credible or not, but I smell crap when reading that institute's program. I think whether Covid is lab-engineered or natural doesn't affect me that drastically, the reality has been what this last year and more has been. My interest in the virus' origin is mainly in the popcorn-worthy political drama. But after reading that institute blurb I'll just set aside the popcorn because this work doesn't seem to be the smoking gun that will set off popcorn-worthy political consequences. Unless someone else who I judge more credible endorses that letter to the editor...
tzs 5y ago
> First "It's Trump so don't listen to him". People also didn't listen to him about wind turbines causing cancer. Or about vaccines causing autism. Or about global warming being a hoax by the Chinese to harm US manufacturing. Or about injecting disinfectants to fight COVID. There was not (and still isn't) any indication that he had any more evidence to back up his COVID origin claims than he had for any of those other claims. All you can safely conclude is that Trump saw a YouTube video or a website or TV commentator that claimed that, and uncritically accepted it.
- the-dude 5y ago
  Could you post the source for the injection claim? It seems to me you uncritically accepted some YT video, website or TV commentator.
  - vannizhang 5y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33QdTOyXz3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33QdTOyXz3w, you are welcome.
- deugo 5y ago
  > People also didn't listen to him about wind turbines causing cancer. Asked why he was not in favor of wind mills, Trump answered once, that "they say" it can cause cancer. "They say" is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_syndrome > Or about vaccines causing autism Trump sues outlets for speculating one of his sons has autism. "Many such cases" may hit close to home here. And a cute test: how much are you willing to bet (hard $) to back this a-causality? Didn't the general courts had to make a special vaccine court to deal with many such (autism) claims? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen... > Or about global warming being a hoax by the Chinese to harm US manufacturing. Global warming is used by the Chinese, in the sense that they completely ignore it, while fostering climate change activism in Western countries, so to reduce their energy footprint from within, and gain unfair advantage. > All you can safely conclude is that Trump saw a YouTube video or a website or TV commentator that claimed that, and uncritically accepted it. Trump was clearly not the best to give that conference. He was leaning towards his science advisors, to fill in the gaps. They told Trump about potential methods using UV-rays or disinfectants. I too would tell the president if I knew about advances in research such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8346001/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8346001/ (Inactivation of respiratory syncytial virus by detergents and disinfectants, 1993), but still hope that he does not run with it and shoots it from the hip. Maybe that was too much to hope for. But don't let people 20 years later remember the lie that "Trump said to inject people with bleach to cure COVID". There is plenty of other embarassing true stuff.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

DDGing his name and institute gets me here: http://www.arielfernandez.net/daruma-institute2.html http://www.arielfernandez.net/daruma-institute2.html Yeah, I can't tell if the biology paper is credible or not, but I smell crap when reading that institute's program. I think whether Covid is lab-engineered or natural doesn't affect me that drastically, the reality has been what this last year and more has been. My interest in the virus' origin is mainly in the popcorn-worthy political drama. But after reading that institute blurb I'll just set aside the popcorn because this work doesn't seem to be the smoking gun that will set off popcorn-worthy political consequences. Unless someone else who I judge more credible endorses that letter to the editor...

tzs 5y ago

> First "It's Trump so don't listen to him". People also didn't listen to him about wind turbines causing cancer. Or about vaccines causing autism. Or about global warming being a hoax by the Chinese to harm US manufacturing. Or about injecting disinfectants to fight COVID. There was not (and still isn't) any indication that he had any more evidence to back up his COVID origin claims than he had for any of those other claims. All you can safely conclude is that Trump saw a YouTube video or a website or TV commentator that claimed that, and uncritically accepted it.

the-dude 5y ago
Could you post the source for the injection claim? It seems to me you uncritically accepted some YT video, website or TV commentator.
- vannizhang 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33QdTOyXz3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33QdTOyXz3w, you are welcome.
deugo 5y ago
> People also didn't listen to him about wind turbines causing cancer. Asked why he was not in favor of wind mills, Trump answered once, that "they say" it can cause cancer. "They say" is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_syndrome > Or about vaccines causing autism Trump sues outlets for speculating one of his sons has autism. "Many such cases" may hit close to home here. And a cute test: how much are you willing to bet (hard $) to back this a-causality? Didn't the general courts had to make a special vaccine court to deal with many such (autism) claims? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen... > Or about global warming being a hoax by the Chinese to harm US manufacturing. Global warming is used by the Chinese, in the sense that they completely ignore it, while fostering climate change activism in Western countries, so to reduce their energy footprint from within, and gain unfair advantage. > All you can safely conclude is that Trump saw a YouTube video or a website or TV commentator that claimed that, and uncritically accepted it. Trump was clearly not the best to give that conference. He was leaning towards his science advisors, to fill in the gaps. They told Trump about potential methods using UV-rays or disinfectants. I too would tell the president if I knew about advances in research such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8346001/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8346001/ (Inactivation of respiratory syncytial virus by detergents and disinfectants, 1993), but still hope that he does not run with it and shoots it from the hip. Maybe that was too much to hope for. But don't let people 20 years later remember the lie that "Trump said to inject people with bleach to cure COVID". There is plenty of other embarassing true stuff.