2 ms·

Just because you believe them and they're smart, doesn't mean they have all the information. So, you can take the opinion of people that weren't physically pre

Just because you believe them and they're smart, doesn't mean they have all the information. So, you can take the opinion of people that weren't physically present at the lab, or you can take the account of a whistleblower who claims to have been physically present and part of an investigation.

junon 5y ago
That's a bizarre and entirely unrealistic dichotomy. I could make a similar one for the other side of the debate, too. But I'll refrain because it's not how scientific discourse should work.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  You're choosing to ignore a whistle blower because it conflicts with your friends opinions, opinions that aren't most likely 1st hand accounts. If you're expecting an organization to just willfully admit negligence or wrong doing, especially if they took actions to cover it up (according to the whistle blower), when has that EVER happened? Do we have the lab records and transaction logs? Are those records able to be tampered with easily? Who, that has subpoena power, is actually investigating? Does anyone have the power to carry out an actual investigation? I don't understand why you're placing your faith in a political system.
  - junon 5y ago
    > You're choosing to ignore a whistle blower I'm choosing to be skeptical of a single person's claim. I never said I ignored them. > because it conflicts with your friends opinions No, because my friends' expert conclusions based on all of the available data conflicts with the "word" of a single, anonymous source. There's nothing that states whistleblowers are telling the truth or that they can be trusted. > If you're expecting an organization to just willfully admit negligence or wrong doing, especially if they took actions to cover it up (according to the whistle blower), when has that EVER happened? That's beside the point I made to begin with. I don't see how it's relevant. The dealings of the CCP do not change how SARS-COVID-2 is structured. > I don't understand why you're placing your faith in a political system. I am, expressly, not doing that. I'm placing faith in people who understand infectious diseases more than some random person on Hacker News - and more than myself, at that.
    - linuxftw 5y ago
      The whistle blower is named and public, not anonymous. > I'm placing faith in people who understand infectious diseases more than some random person on Hacker News - and more than myself, at that. You're choosing to listen to your friend's opinion, who probably doesn't possess any material facts. > how SARS-COVID-2 is structured That's really not at issue here, I think you're addressing a strawman that I didn't make.
      - junon 5y ago
        > The whistle blower is named and public, not anonymous. Okay, and my point still stands. > who probably doesn't possess any material facts. Why do you make such strong assertions/assumptions when you have no idea to whom I'm referring? > That's really not at issue here, I think you're addressing a strawman that I didn't make. Not really, no. I don't think you're really making good points to begin with.
        linuxftw 5y ago
        > Why do you make such strong assertions/assumptions when you have no idea to whom I'm referring? Because you could have already easily said "I know someone with 1st hand information from the place in question" but you didn't, so it seems strongly likely you don't. What information would you actually be willing to consider to change your point of view? It seems unlikely at this point anything resembling an actual investigation will ever take place, so the best we have is a whistle blower.

junon 5y ago

That's a bizarre and entirely unrealistic dichotomy. I could make a similar one for the other side of the debate, too. But I'll refrain because it's not how scientific discourse should work.

linuxftw 5y ago
You're choosing to ignore a whistle blower because it conflicts with your friends opinions, opinions that aren't most likely 1st hand accounts. If you're expecting an organization to just willfully admit negligence or wrong doing, especially if they took actions to cover it up (according to the whistle blower), when has that EVER happened? Do we have the lab records and transaction logs? Are those records able to be tampered with easily? Who, that has subpoena power, is actually investigating? Does anyone have the power to carry out an actual investigation? I don't understand why you're placing your faith in a political system.
- junon 5y ago
  > You're choosing to ignore a whistle blower I'm choosing to be skeptical of a single person's claim. I never said I ignored them. > because it conflicts with your friends opinions No, because my friends' expert conclusions based on all of the available data conflicts with the "word" of a single, anonymous source. There's nothing that states whistleblowers are telling the truth or that they can be trusted. > If you're expecting an organization to just willfully admit negligence or wrong doing, especially if they took actions to cover it up (according to the whistle blower), when has that EVER happened? That's beside the point I made to begin with. I don't see how it's relevant. The dealings of the CCP do not change how SARS-COVID-2 is structured. > I don't understand why you're placing your faith in a political system. I am, expressly, not doing that. I'm placing faith in people who understand infectious diseases more than some random person on Hacker News - and more than myself, at that.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    The whistle blower is named and public, not anonymous. > I'm placing faith in people who understand infectious diseases more than some random person on Hacker News - and more than myself, at that. You're choosing to listen to your friend's opinion, who probably doesn't possess any material facts. > how SARS-COVID-2 is structured That's really not at issue here, I think you're addressing a strawman that I didn't make.
    - junon 5y ago
      > The whistle blower is named and public, not anonymous. Okay, and my point still stands. > who probably doesn't possess any material facts. Why do you make such strong assertions/assumptions when you have no idea to whom I'm referring? > That's really not at issue here, I think you're addressing a strawman that I didn't make. Not really, no. I don't think you're really making good points to begin with.
      - linuxftw 5y ago
        > Why do you make such strong assertions/assumptions when you have no idea to whom I'm referring? Because you could have already easily said "I know someone with 1st hand information from the place in question" but you didn't, so it seems strongly likely you don't. What information would you actually be willing to consider to change your point of view? It seems unlikely at this point anything resembling an actual investigation will ever take place, so the best we have is a whistle blower.