6 ms·

Me: "Doing your own research on this is very difficult due to people with credentials selling their reputations to service political goals." You: "What about

• benreesman 4y ago
  Why are you so insistent that there shouldn’t be a discussion on this? For you to say, e.g. “My bona fides are such and such, I find this theory highly implausible for $REASONS” would be eminently useful and helpful and very much in the spirit of the site. In case the multiple people saying this aren’t saying it clearly enough: you sound more like “Serious people all agree about this, only cranks disagree with us, and you plebs wouldn’t understand even if I explained it”. Love #1. Fuck #2 in fucking particular.
  • mikeyouse 4y ago
    > Serious people all agree about this, only cranks disagree with us Mostly joking but if the shoe fits... As one example, one of the authors of the famous 'Viral' book pointing to a Lab Leak is a coal baron GW denier who chaired a bank that failed due to subprime loans and who previously claimed that HIV was a man-made virus derived from failed polio vaccination experiments[1]. How much credence should we give someone like that? How many hours of time should be spent debunking every new theory he promotes rather than just casting him aside and looking for non-morons to engage with? Or how should one engage with this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33522713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33522713 It's just a smattering of grievances and debunked conspiracy theories. How would virologists begin to respond to that? I mean I said it above, and I'll just copy/paste it here; > Admitting that Covid19 was very likely a spillover of a natural virus doesn't mean that you trust China, that you think their labs are run well or are incapable of accidents, that they've been transparent or helpful with the investigations, or that the possibility of new evidence pointing to a lab origin is foreclosed -- just that the actual physical evidence we have today about this virus and this pandemic overwhelmingly points to a natural origin. There are well-intentioned scientists testing theories that could point to a lab origin of Covid, it would be extremely interesting and important if they find something to indicate that's the case. Unfortunately to the casual observer of the actual state of science here, they'd be led to believe that there's consensus about a lab leak or at least a strong likelihood backed by evidence when that's not remotely true. [1] - https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/Prospect.html https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/Prospect...
• we_never_see_it 4y ago
  > [2] - https://twitter.com/janeqiuchina/status/1589098167051911169 https://twitter.com/janeqiuchina/status/1589098167051911169 Since you put the Twitter handle as an evidence for your argument. This particular Chinese jounalist is using Twitter and publishing articles in Western journals *while living in China*. What makes you think she is more trustworthy than Steve Bannon? Even if she is an honest and trustworthy person why would CCP let her publish anything that goes against their narrative? > just that the actual physical evidence we have today about this virus and this pandemic overwhelmingly points to a natural origin actual physical evidence *provided by China* FTFY. You don't think China will readily handover the data to you if it came from lab, do you? And what physical evidence? The evidences are just some early patient data and virus gene sequences. By that logic HIV spillover happened in US, not in Africa. Because early HIV cases have been detected in USA. > overwhelmingly points to a natural origin according to whom? The virologists who also have a history of covering up lab leaks. The virologists who will have the most to lose if lab leak is true. [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/20/world/europe/coronavirus-lab-anthrax.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/20/world/europe/coronavirus-...
• Melting_Harps 4y ago
  I'm not going to engage with the 'me vs you' narrative you have going here, because you are forcing this into the polarization tactics that social media uses: I presented not just sources to those claims but I also followed up with ACTUAL incidents that took place that you could research yourself that make it impossible to arrive to that conclusion that it's overwhelmingly of natural origin which has been at the core of the CCP's discourse (despite conflicting claims of it being a US bioweapon) which absolves everyone involved and will ultimately be the highly contentious but acceptable narrative if you want any funding in the future and don't want to rock the boat, or if you're a mainlander released from indefinite lockdown. I'd rather question your claims than your position, because I know where you stand anyway, which is the crux of my response: so, where was it revealed that Dr. Yan lied about her credentials and her experience at the Wuhan lab? To date that has never been proven despite constant criticism, what has been proven is that she was scrubbed from the Internet when she went public and that the CCP targeted her family (she is a Chinese National) while she was still in HK. She continues to publish her work in peer-reviewed journals [0] and her work stands alongside her colleagues who continue to publish their work on other journals. I'm willing to review these sources that discredit her in order to contrast with my currently held position and arrive to a better informed position, which is something I'm not sure you are willing to do. I will agree that those who ran with the story first have a clear and unscrupulous bias, but that is the very definition of shooting the messenger which never result in her claims being thoroughly vetted--she released her scientific papers after having arrived to the US and fleeing from China then HK and finally to the US. That takes resources she likely didn't have after the ordeal. This has to be seen as dire as the exodus of Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi Germany for it to be seen in proper context, as that is what has happened in Hong Kong since the Summer of 2019 and ultimately what set the NSL doctrine in HK, but since so many dismiss things based on association then you're making my point for me that is continues even in the upper echelons of Academia as I presume you are given what you have said and how you have expressed yourself thus far. > Admitting that Covid19 was very likely a spillover of a natural virus doesn't mean that you trust China, that you think their labs are run well or are incapable of accidents, that they've been transparent or helpful with the investigations, or that the possibility of new evidence pointing to a lab origin is foreclosed -- just that the actual physical evidence we have today about this virus and this pandemic overwhelmingly points to a natural origin. Personally, I fully admit I do not have beyond an undergrads understanding of genetics/virology; my career was spent in the field of oncological diagnostics (specifically Leukemia and Lymphoma), so it's hardly the same field and I do not claim expertise. But, unlike most, I have a very clear and documented history laying out the violent hypocrisy of the CCP's held beliefs on COVID and it's actions in HK that coincided with the protests in 2019-2021. But, it stands to reason that anyone who remains so adamant of the claims (Natural origin) and is coaxing it as much as you are the likely cause requires much more compelling evidence and is otherwise ignoring the simple fact that we will never know what happened due to the refusal of the CCP to allow investigators into the country in the onset while having cases in HK and still forcing the borders open to the mainland when it was in lockdown and that the subsequent floods removed any real evidence that could identify the origin (on either side) in order to create a consensus is done in order to get back to business as usual while simultaneously trying to absolve anyone guilt of this as something that needs to be accepted--which is ironic since this naturaly caused illness is still forcing people in China to be locked-down due to China's zero-covid policy. These are the (many) mental gymnastics I underscored in my first post, and why I think it's deserving of such ire. You make claims, you cannot support and instead will play identity politics (entirely useless since I'm an anarchist and I have no political affiliation) rather than rebuttal with actual evidence and facts to support your claim. Which thus far include: - COVID is of Natural Origin due the evidence (that's not conclusive) - Dr. Yan is not a real scientist and lied about her experience and is puppet of the MAGA crowd - Lab Leak is absurd and should be dismissed because reasons(?) Again, I remain that any person with any shred of credibility would question all positions and realize we simply do not have, and will likely never have, enough information to conclusively arrive to either. But it's this forced narrative and consensus MO (and the arrogance that follows with it) that is strikingly consistent in my experience--not to mention this need for a 'COVID amnesty' and the blanket immunity of pharmaceutical corps got early on. Do I know it definitely leaked from a lab? Absolutely not, I felt it was rather convenient and compelling evidence to quell the HK revolts against the extradition bill (given who bird flu went down) and I saw to what length the CCP was willing to go to do so, and has continued on a belligerent war-path to achieve it's end thorough out it's bloody history and will disspaear, kill and enslave people who question it's position and supremacy clause on the one china policy. And this is why I think it's not beyond reason that they used the pre-tense of a wet-lab based disease in order to achieve their end(s), which ironically was supported by the US via NIH grants to study GoF at the Wuhan lab until 2017 and had a documented lengthy history of safety violations and had reported cases of similar symptoms in the Fall of 2019 which was critical in suppressing the HK protests. 0: https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=3025601 https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55))/referenc...