4 ms·
> What work is that? Unnaturally bringing bats and pangolins together in a meat market? The only "real world" excuse ever offered. GoF research in virology is
by cbsmith 3y ago
> What work is that? Unnaturally bringing bats and pangolins together in a meat market? The only "real world" excuse ever offered.
GoF research in virology is specifically to replicate what happens in nature in hopes of forecasting outcomes and giving us more time to respond to them. If it isn't doing what happens in nature, it is, by definition, a failure.
> I've read their reports and their annual revisions. I'm not convinced they're needed, and since the "science" here is purely a wild guess using models projected backwards in time to fit existing data, the results aren't particularly meaningful either.
Those "guesses" have proven to amazingly insightful. You may not find them useful, but even energy companies have found these forecasts useful for their business.
> Do any of these require you to invent novel phenomenon to "study?" If not, then your comparison is purely the making of a strawman.
Yes, they do. More precisely, I would say they involve artificially controlled experiments that are used to forecast outcomes in nature.
...and I wasn't making a comparison or a strawman. I was taking your statement as an assertion, and identifying that in fact many scientific fields employ methods that you describe as "anti-science".
> Interestingly.. was any "forecast" of the virus they created in a lab provided to anyone?
No. One might almost think that perhaps "the virus" wasn't created in a lab. It's unlikely, given the large number of virologists who've said it wasn't created in a lab, but maybe?
> Even if we did have it, would it have made a difference in timelines?
Yes. Hugely, particularly for testing. Most of the vaccine development cycle is tied up in testing for safety and such, so the impact there is smaller, but it's not zero.
> You clearly see the exact problem.
I do. I don't think it's the same problem that you are seeing.
- nvm0n2 3y agoHow exactly do seismologists or meteorologists do artificial experiments that replicate the phenomena they study? > GoF research in virology is specifically to replicate what happens in nature And yet in both the leaked chats and third party analysis, they talk extensively about how the RNA sequence doesn't match what they'd expect from natural evolution. Not only was it highly adapted to humans right from the get go, but there was the furin cleavage site too. The strange and artificial looking nature of it created suspicion immediately which is why they engaged in a conspiracy to shut down and censor discussion of it. So that doesn't seem like they're just replicating nature.
- peteradio 3y agoExactly, there doesn't seem to be any restraint to creating viruses that would match a naturally occurring pathway. Viruses are simple enough that you can do statistical analysis and determine how many years it would take for such an occurrence to take place in nature. Humans have the tools to create viruses that wouldn't occur in the wild before the heat death of the universe.