4 ms·

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads

by iqanq 5y ago

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2... Page 8.

jacquesm 5y ago
You don't seem to understand the material you are linking to at all. That's fine by me but this does not constitute evidence in the scientific sense of the word and that's what I am getting at.
- iqanq 5y ago
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
Yes, more context is needed. Here's what it says on page 8, and on page 7, listing the email from Ron Foucher: ... Given the evidence presented and the discussions around it, I would conclude that a follow-up discussion on the possible origin of 2019-nCoV would be of much interest. However, I doubt if it needs to be done on very short term, given the importance of other activities of the scientific community, WHO and other stakeholders at present. It is my opinion that a non-natural origin of 2019-nCoV is highly unlikely at present. Any conspiracy theory can be approached with factual information. ... An accusation that nCoV-2019 might have been engineered and released into the environment by humans (accidental or intentional) would need to be supported by strong data, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is good that this possibility was discussed in detail with a team of experts. However, further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular. The Telegraph cited only the last sentence ("However, further debate...") and left out the preceding text where Ron Foucher staes his opinion that a non-natural origin is "highly unlikely". This is a clear attempt to take a quote out of context to make it look like it says something completely different than what was actually said. Further, this is from page 3, listing the email from Francis Collins: Though the arguments from Ron Fouchier and Christian Drosten are presented with more forcefulness than necessary, I am coming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely. But I share your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence inspiring framework (WHO seems really the only option) is needed, or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony... Which is clearly calling for open, public debate, rather than keeping quiet.

by iqanq 5y ago

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2... Page 8.

jacquesm 5y ago

You don't seem to understand the material you are linking to at all. That's fine by me but this does not constitute evidence in the scientific sense of the word and that's what I am getting at.

iqanq 5y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

Yes, more context is needed. Here's what it says on page 8, and on page 7, listing the email from Ron Foucher: ... Given the evidence presented and the discussions around it, I would conclude that a follow-up discussion on the possible origin of 2019-nCoV would be of much interest. However, I doubt if it needs to be done on very short term, given the importance of other activities of the scientific community, WHO and other stakeholders at present. It is my opinion that a non-natural origin of 2019-nCoV is highly unlikely at present. Any conspiracy theory can be approached with factual information. ... An accusation that nCoV-2019 might have been engineered and released into the environment by humans (accidental or intentional) would need to be supported by strong data, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is good that this possibility was discussed in detail with a team of experts. However, further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular. The Telegraph cited only the last sentence ("However, further debate...") and left out the preceding text where Ron Foucher staes his opinion that a non-natural origin is "highly unlikely". This is a clear attempt to take a quote out of context to make it look like it says something completely different than what was actually said. Further, this is from page 3, listing the email from Francis Collins: Though the arguments from Ron Fouchier and Christian Drosten are presented with more forcefulness than necessary, I am coming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely. But I share your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence inspiring framework (WHO seems really the only option) is needed, or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony... Which is clearly calling for open, public debate, rather than keeping quiet.