4 ms·

What a garbage response. The author starts by discrediting both the authors. Next, the smoking gun which it cites repeatedly (The study on Laos bats) is not eve

by malshe 5y ago

What a garbage response. The author starts by discrediting both the authors. Next, the smoking gun which it cites repeatedly (The study on Laos bats) is not even peer-reviewed! This is from the articled linked from this article: “The results, which are not peer reviewed, have been posted on the preprint server Research Square.” Sounds like very lazy “journalism” to me.

bpodgursky 5y ago
It also conflates "lab-engineered" with "lab-leak". How would a disease from a bat from Laos make it to Wuhan? It still could be from the WIV!
- ummonk 5y ago
  This is what the article authors mean by lab-leak arguments being unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence comes out, it can still be shoe-horned into a lab-leak theory.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    That's not really true. You could falsify it by: - Opening the records about which viruses the WIV was storing. It's not a mystery — labs track that kind of thing! But China refused to release any data about which viruses the WIV stored or modified. - Finding a clear chain of infection between a natural source and the outbreak in Wuhan - Finding clear evidence that there was a small outbreak which later spread to Wuhan Nobody has managed any of those.
  - jimrandomh 5y ago
    No, the Laos bats are strong evidence for the lab leak hypothesis because it makes a prediction which could have turned out false: that if a close relative of COVID-19 is found somewhere, predict that researchers took samples from that area to Wuhan prior to the start of the pandemic.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    Others below point out that it is indeed falsifiable but more importantly, why would it discredit the theory if you can't disprove it? You can certainly disprove some versions of it and as far as I can seen there has been a lot of outrage and occlusion by the Chinese government but very little effort to actually disprove anything.
- adolph 5y ago
  It was winter so the manager of Alice Cooper’s Live Bat Bites at the Wuhan wet market has to bring them in from farther away.
ummonk 5y ago
While I don't personally find Matt Ridley's (or Alina Chan's) views on genetics or climate change to be damaging to their credibility, I think it's just as valid to mention them as it is to discuss Peter Daszak's conflict of interest. And the study on Laos bats is clearly undergoing peer-review: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1
- blast 5y ago
  I don't see how it's "just as valid" to mention those extraneous things. Daszak's conflict of interest is directly relevant to the issue being discussed, and the Lancet piece which was distorted by it was a critical moment in the history of the issue.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    I most definitely think it's just as valid to present that Riley wrote this: https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/Prospect.html https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/Prospect... I think it's important to understand the writer's past history on an analogous subject, as it points to his motivations. I think letting you know he also previously argued about the benefits of global warming "nourishing the oceans", https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-heres-the-good-news-on-global-warming-p322w7026lv https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-heres-the-good-news-o... , points to the type of arguments this person likes to make. I agree the stuff about his failed bank is irrelevant.
    - estaseuropano 5y ago
      Yours is a super weird as hominem attack. The article you link is a very well written boon review which summarizes the arguments of the book. Ridley's review concludes that the theory that aids was transferred to humans through large-scale experimental vaccinations with vaccines made out of chimp liver is a theory worth further investigation. This is GOOD SCIENCE. You analyze data and put forward theory. I can't speak to the merits of the theory or the book being reviewed, but why would it discredit Ridley if he reads and reviews critical books and is open to exploring alternative theories?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sgt101 5y ago
Was the Ridley / Chan book peer reviewed?

by malshe 5y ago

bpodgursky 5y ago

It also conflates "lab-engineered" with "lab-leak". How would a disease from a bat from Laos make it to Wuhan? It still could be from the WIV!

ummonk 5y ago
This is what the article authors mean by lab-leak arguments being unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence comes out, it can still be shoe-horned into a lab-leak theory.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  That's not really true. You could falsify it by: - Opening the records about which viruses the WIV was storing. It's not a mystery — labs track that kind of thing! But China refused to release any data about which viruses the WIV stored or modified. - Finding a clear chain of infection between a natural source and the outbreak in Wuhan - Finding clear evidence that there was a small outbreak which later spread to Wuhan Nobody has managed any of those.
- jimrandomh 5y ago
  No, the Laos bats are strong evidence for the lab leak hypothesis because it makes a prediction which could have turned out false: that if a close relative of COVID-19 is found somewhere, predict that researchers took samples from that area to Wuhan prior to the start of the pandemic.
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  Others below point out that it is indeed falsifiable but more importantly, why would it discredit the theory if you can't disprove it? You can certainly disprove some versions of it and as far as I can seen there has been a lot of outrage and occlusion by the Chinese government but very little effort to actually disprove anything.
adolph 5y ago
It was winter so the manager of Alice Cooper’s Live Bat Bites at the Wuhan wet market has to bring them in from farther away.

ummonk 5y ago

While I don't personally find Matt Ridley's (or Alina Chan's) views on genetics or climate change to be damaging to their credibility, I think it's just as valid to mention them as it is to discuss Peter Daszak's conflict of interest. And the study on Laos bats is clearly undergoing peer-review: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1

blast 5y ago
I don't see how it's "just as valid" to mention those extraneous things. Daszak's conflict of interest is directly relevant to the issue being discussed, and the Lancet piece which was distorted by it was a critical moment in the history of the issue.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  I most definitely think it's just as valid to present that Riley wrote this: https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/Prospect.html https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/Prospect... I think it's important to understand the writer's past history on an analogous subject, as it points to his motivations. I think letting you know he also previously argued about the benefits of global warming "nourishing the oceans", https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-heres-the-good-news-on-global-warming-p322w7026lv https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-heres-the-good-news-o... , points to the type of arguments this person likes to make. I agree the stuff about his failed bank is irrelevant.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    Yours is a super weird as hominem attack. The article you link is a very well written boon review which summarizes the arguments of the book. Ridley's review concludes that the theory that aids was transferred to humans through large-scale experimental vaccinations with vaccines made out of chimp liver is a theory worth further investigation. This is GOOD SCIENCE. You analyze data and put forward theory. I can't speak to the merits of the theory or the book being reviewed, but why would it discredit Ridley if he reads and reviews critical books and is open to exploring alternative theories?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sgt101 5y ago

Was the Ridley / Chan book peer reviewed?