4 ms·

Stephen Quay is a "well known scientist" in a field completely unrelated to virology. He's a medical doctor who also does oncology research. Despite admitting t

Stephen Quay is a "well known scientist" in a field completely unrelated to virology. He's a medical doctor who also does oncology research. Despite admitting to having no experience with Bayesian inference, he produced a "Bayesian analysis" of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Another person who testified at that hearing, David Asher (also not a virologist, or even a scientist, but rather a former State Department bureaucrat), has been trying to argue for a year that SARS-CoV-2 is a biological weapon designed by the Chinese military. The connection between Asher and Quay is that during the Trump administration, Asher led a group trying to prove that SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon. Asher refused to go to actual subject-matter experts, and instead had Quay do his "Bayesian analysis." When Asher was finally forced by another official to bring scientists with relevant expertise in to go over his evidence, they tore it to shreds.[1] These are simply not credible people to be getting your scientific information on SARS-CoV-2 from. 1. https://christopherashleyford.medium.com/the-lab-leak-inquiry-at-the-state-department-96973cff3a65 https://christopherashleyford.medium.com/the-lab-leak-inquir...

LinuxBender 5y ago
I stand corrected. Is any of what they said accurate?
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  I haven't watched their Congressional testimony, but I've read Quay's "analysis" and heard Asher propound on his bioweapon theory elsewhere. Quay's analysis is not a rigorous Bayesian analysis in any sense. It's a series of subjective judgments about likelihoods of various scenarios. It's classic garbage-in, garbage-out, dressed up as science by using the word "Bayesian." The thing is, Bayesian inference is only as good as the information and knowledge you put into it. Quay treats cancer patients and invents medical devices. He has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to virology. It's incredibly telling that he's the guy that pro-lab-leak congresspeople invite to talk, instead of an actual virologist. Asher is just a career political hack with no scientific background. Edit: Right off the bat, Quay's first claim in his testimony is highly dubious. He claims that the Huanan Seafood market was not where the virus spilled over, because supposedly the earliest version of the virus wasn't found in patients who were at the market. Two problems: 1. We don't actually know which is the oldest lineage of the virus. 2. Only a tiny fraction of people who got sick at the market have had samples taken. Probably hundreds of people at the market caught the virus and had mild or asymptomatic cases. We only have a few samples, from people who fell seriously ill. By the way, mortality evidence independently supports the Huanan market as the area of the first major outbreak.
  - api 5y ago
    There are actual virologists who support the lab leak theory, but my guess is that Congress is calling him because he is pushing it as an intentional lab leak. There is so far no evidence at all for that, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Biological warfare is like trying to use a grenade as a handgun. Yes it does hurt your opponent, but... Yes China did seem to contain COVID well, but if it were (hypothetically) a bio-weapon there's no way they could have known ahead of time they'd be this successful or that the virus wouldn't mutate into something far more dangerous. The CCP can be evil but they're not reckless. They prefer a very measured, calculated, incremental approach, not high-risk gambits like releasing a bioweapon. If that backfired it could decimate their population, drag them into WWIII, or both, and none of that would be a win.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      > There are actual virologists who support the lab leak theory Very few. I don't know of any major virologist who actually says it's more likely, and the overwhelming majority say it's highly unlikely. Right now, everything points to the outbreak being associated with animal markets, just like SARS.
      - CMay 5y ago
        Using quantity like this to prop up your reasoning and discounting the contributions of someone outside of a field both weaken the strength of your conclusions, unfortunately.
        DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        When people who know what they're talking about say one thing, and people who don't know what they're talking about say the opposite, who are you going to listen to? There are very good reasons why virologists think SARS-CoV-2 spilled over naturally. I've discussed some of the reasons elsewhere in this discussion (there's absolutely no evidence the WIV had this virus before the outbreak, and there's pretty good evidence they didn't, dangerous human-animal interactions outside labs are vastly more common than in labs, the first outbreak was centered on a market that housed live animals).
bhk 5y ago
In response to the claim "YouTube it still taking down videos claiming X", you reply "This video featured someone not credible." Are you claiming that YouTube's policy is to take down all videos with non-credible speakers? Or that YouTube judged that the arguments made in this particular video did not meet their standards?
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  I replied in response to > Two well known scientists testified before congress on GoF testing and the Corona Virus characteristics. I'm not commenting on YouTube's policy. I'm commenting on the fact that the people giving testimony are not at all credible. It says a lot that Congress invites obvious cranks to testify, rather than scientists with relevant expertise.

LinuxBender 5y ago

I stand corrected. Is any of what they said accurate?

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
I haven't watched their Congressional testimony, but I've read Quay's "analysis" and heard Asher propound on his bioweapon theory elsewhere. Quay's analysis is not a rigorous Bayesian analysis in any sense. It's a series of subjective judgments about likelihoods of various scenarios. It's classic garbage-in, garbage-out, dressed up as science by using the word "Bayesian." The thing is, Bayesian inference is only as good as the information and knowledge you put into it. Quay treats cancer patients and invents medical devices. He has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to virology. It's incredibly telling that he's the guy that pro-lab-leak congresspeople invite to talk, instead of an actual virologist. Asher is just a career political hack with no scientific background. Edit: Right off the bat, Quay's first claim in his testimony is highly dubious. He claims that the Huanan Seafood market was not where the virus spilled over, because supposedly the earliest version of the virus wasn't found in patients who were at the market. Two problems: 1. We don't actually know which is the oldest lineage of the virus. 2. Only a tiny fraction of people who got sick at the market have had samples taken. Probably hundreds of people at the market caught the virus and had mild or asymptomatic cases. We only have a few samples, from people who fell seriously ill. By the way, mortality evidence independently supports the Huanan market as the area of the first major outbreak.
- api 5y ago
  There are actual virologists who support the lab leak theory, but my guess is that Congress is calling him because he is pushing it as an intentional lab leak. There is so far no evidence at all for that, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Biological warfare is like trying to use a grenade as a handgun. Yes it does hurt your opponent, but... Yes China did seem to contain COVID well, but if it were (hypothetically) a bio-weapon there's no way they could have known ahead of time they'd be this successful or that the virus wouldn't mutate into something far more dangerous. The CCP can be evil but they're not reckless. They prefer a very measured, calculated, incremental approach, not high-risk gambits like releasing a bioweapon. If that backfired it could decimate their population, drag them into WWIII, or both, and none of that would be a win.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    > There are actual virologists who support the lab leak theory Very few. I don't know of any major virologist who actually says it's more likely, and the overwhelming majority say it's highly unlikely. Right now, everything points to the outbreak being associated with animal markets, just like SARS.
    - CMay 5y ago
      Using quantity like this to prop up your reasoning and discounting the contributions of someone outside of a field both weaken the strength of your conclusions, unfortunately.
      - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        When people who know what they're talking about say one thing, and people who don't know what they're talking about say the opposite, who are you going to listen to? There are very good reasons why virologists think SARS-CoV-2 spilled over naturally. I've discussed some of the reasons elsewhere in this discussion (there's absolutely no evidence the WIV had this virus before the outbreak, and there's pretty good evidence they didn't, dangerous human-animal interactions outside labs are vastly more common than in labs, the first outbreak was centered on a market that housed live animals).

bhk 5y ago

In response to the claim "YouTube it still taking down videos claiming X", you reply "This video featured someone not credible." Are you claiming that YouTube's policy is to take down all videos with non-credible speakers? Or that YouTube judged that the arguments made in this particular video did not meet their standards?

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
I replied in response to > Two well known scientists testified before congress on GoF testing and the Corona Virus characteristics. I'm not commenting on YouTube's policy. I'm commenting on the fact that the people giving testimony are not at all credible. It says a lot that Congress invites obvious cranks to testify, rather than scientists with relevant expertise.