4 ms·
So, posting these assertions over and over again makes them true? Let's start at the core as stated in the first paragraph: > ... the central issue of whether
by m0llusk 5y ago
So, posting these assertions over and over again makes them true?
Let's start at the core as stated in the first paragraph:
> ... the central issue of whether it began with natural spillover from animals or some kind of laboratory incident.
How exactly is this a central issue? We know that similar viruses appear at a significant rate. How we respond to such inevitable new viruses is going to be the same no matter where they came from. What this is doing is superimposing ideas about storytelling and morality on a situation we have little actual information about. If anything the genesis of SARS-CoV2 is nearly irrelevant.
Then it asserts that gain of function experiments were going on because chimeras were created. That is a basic misunderstanding of the subject matter. Chimeras are created when gain of function research is simply too complex or has failed outright, both of which appear to be the case here. Few think that SARS-CoV2 started with an experimental chimera because chimeras don't work that way and there is no evidence of chimeric origins in SARS-CoV2.
> ... three people who fell sick at a BSL 3 lab within a week of each other.
This is ridiculous. It is well established from satellite data that there was an explosion of activity at Wuhan hospitals starting in August. Researchers at the Wuhan facility got sick because everyone in Wuhan was getting sick at that time and had been for at least a month.
When you have to engage in that kind of evidence hiding and drama building to make an assertion there is likely to be a problem in the reasoning. This is a really good example of how the power of storytelling tends to overwhelm even obvious truths.
> ... these are small steps forward in the search for the pandemic origins.
No, these are motivated lies which are incrementally burying the truth. If we are to know the origins of the virus it will probably be through ongoing analysis of gene sequencing data as usual, and whether we find the origins or not we need to be ready for the next new virus because what we can say with absolute certainty is that there will be more deadly viruses and we need to take that seriously no matter where they might come from or what stories we might like to tell about them.
- inciampati 5y agoI won't repeat myself, but above I assert that there are some critically unusual things about this virus that make it look extremely different from the viruses that "happen all the time." We gain this information not from inside documents or statements that can be dismissed as lies, but from the highly observable viral phylogeny and phenotypic evolution. These are highly unusual in the scope of natural viral spillover events, and any serious attempt to ground the virus in a natural introduction must develop a theory that explains them. What's your plausible story?
- TrispusAttucks 5y agoYou are correct but so many people have been brainwashed and will refuse to accept that what they were told is a lie. Their very identity is at stake and will not abandon their position.
- notacoward 5y ago> Their very identity is at stake and will not abandon their position. This is actually much more likely among contrarians and critics than the general populace. People who are insecure about their identities seek out opportunities to stand out, not blend in.
- michaelmrose 5y ago> I assert that there are some critically unusual things about this virus that make it look extremely different from the viruses that "happen all the time." What are these critically unusual things?
- notacoward 5y agoYes, there are differences that seem unlikely to arise as part of natural evolution. There are also differences that seem unlikely to arise as part of a lab experiment (i.e. things that are well beyond our known or predictable ability). Some kind of unlikely event still managed to happen. Treating the statistical improbability as evidence for only one conclusion is suspect.
- kyrra 5y agoYou're one of the first people I've seen defending these points. Do you have any well sources articles that back up any of the points you are making?
- tim333 5y ago"the central issue" is a bit in the eye of the beholder. Some people are interested in how this all happened. I'll give you the "three people who fell sick" doesn't prove much. The release of the funding documents is a small step towards figuring what went on.