9 ms·

That's a really good way to handle it. I don't know where the brain worms are from exactly, but I've seen people who don't otherwise have rocks for brains going

That's a really good way to handle it. I don't know where the brain worms are from exactly, but I've seen people who don't otherwise have rocks for brains going full-on "All the scientists are wrong, I'm just asking questions, leaked from a Chinese lab!" about this specific conspiracy theory. I get there's a nationalism aspect, but that's no excuse to throw your brain out the window. Edit: It is weird that on a pretty technical forum there are a bunch of people here who don't know anything about virology disagreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus in the field, based on overtly conspiratorial thinking (e.g. "Look at the connections, this can't be a coincidence, this man leaked the truth and they silenced him" etc etc). You don't get to scientific consensus on something through a conspiracy. I wonder what the people replying with conspiracy theories think about climate change.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
> That's a really good way to handle it. Oh you were serious? Yea I guess I don’t get where anyone would get all that nonsense from. It’s nothing more than a coincidence that the first people that got sick worked in and around China’s only level4 bio lab, that the NIH was confirmed to 1-degree indirectly funding gain of function research on sars coronaviruses… then after the virus was out the Chinese government came in to prevent access to that facility and it’s data. I mean… how racist do you have to be to give any credit to the conspiracy theory that it didn’t come from a wet market near that lab?
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
Here we go again... Covid was an extreme case of "this is the only truth, everyone else has rocks for brains", and then the truth changing overnight. Masks don't help, you don't need them, just wash your hands, to you must wear a mask, vaccinated people don't get sick, don't spread the virus, to whoops, heart issues are just a conspiracy thory, to countries stopping use of specific vaccines due to heart issues. Don't be like that, accept that other theories are possible, and that we don't know the whole truth yet.
- kube-system 3y ago
  This is a revisionist interpretation of history. The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first. And in regards to the behavior of the virus, recommendations were always based on the best understanding of the virus at the time and were updated as those understandings changed. Public health guidance isn't "the science", it is a snapshot of professional interpretation of science at a single point in time.
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    We're not talking about scientific process, which changes with new evidence, we're talking about calling people as "heads filled with rocks" for suggesting that the current recommendations are bad/wrong/inapropriate/...., censoring them from social networks, calling them covid deniers, conspiracy theorists, having their wikipedia edits removed, doxing them, and in some cases, even doing stuff that affects their livelyhood, possible medical licences etc., then having the 'truth' change, not acknowledge that 'we' were wrong, and 'they' were right and apologizing, but again, doing all those things to the next group (eg. the ones who bought and wore masks in the time when it was "enough to just wash your hands" were "attacked" first, then the "attack" moved over to the ones who didn't want to wear a mask). If someone (from the government, national 'cdc', whoever) stood up infront of the cameras, said "we fucked up, masks are really needed, we thought so otherwise and gave bad advice, we're sorry, please wear masks", then sure... some will get mad, because their relatives died by following the advice, but for most, it would be a decent thing done by their governments... but banning people who suggested that we need masks, and then banning people who suggested that we didn't need masks without unbanning the first group, is, well... stupid. > The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first. Oh yeah, just a thing I'd like to see with people in power, scientists in doctors... "we lied to you, because we couldn't fill out order forms in time, you could have died by following our advice, but here's new advice, we're totally not lying now, whoopsie, sorry!" (but without the 'sorry'). How am I supposed to trust them now, when they recommend something else?
    - 3y ago
kbutler 3y ago
https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wr... """ The mainstream media downplayed—and even denied—the scientific theory that COVID-19 emerged from the WIV. Nicholas Wade testified about the campaign to discredit the lab leak theory. He pointed out that scientists kept in line with the natural origin camp led by Drs. Fauci and Collins because of their dependence on government grants and that the media failed to challenge the forced narrative. All witnesses agreed that the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab is not a conspiracy theory. """
- explaininjs 3y ago
  Also don't forget Fauci payed WIV to study bat coronaviruses. But since no document exists saying his money went directly to developing this particular coronavirus, we are supposed to take this as a nothing-burger. > In 2014, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the part of the NIH headed by Fauci, awarded a $3.4 million grant to the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, which aims to protect people from viruses that jump from species to species. > The group hired the virology lab in Wuhan to conduct genetic analyses of bat coronaviruses collected in Yunnan province, about 800 miles southwest of Wuhan. EcoHealth Alliance paid the lab $598,500 over five years. The lab had secured approval from both the U.S. State Department and the NIH. > That the NIAID funded the project is not in question. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/02/09/covid-dr-anthony-fauci-did-not-fund-research-tied-creation/4450338001/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
zmgsabst 3y ago
What specific evidence lends credence to the “overwhelming scientific consensus” you claim? There’s still no known natural precursor and the only thing we see with a similar Furin cleavage site (which greatly enhanced the virality) doesn’t look like the backbone of the virus. The only US intelligence agency which assessed the situation with moderate confidence was the one who concluded that it was a lab leak. The natural origin conclusion only received low confidence. Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. You seem to be ignoring the actual scientific data, the work of intelligence agencies, and the documented human aspects which impacted this. But yeah, keep throwing that abuse out there to shame others because they don’t recite the headlines as good as you. Edit: People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. Are they self-aware enough to realize they were fishing for a pretense to ignore you?
- lucubratory 3y ago
  >Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. Are you self-aware enough to know that this paragraph gives the game away that your whole comment is conspiratorial nonsense, or does it feel normal to you to theorise that some US public health official who got caught up in partisan US politics is personally intimidating scientists into agreeing with scientific consensus, and rewarding them with grants for doing so?
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Scientists have been caught red handed lying about lab leak https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical-of https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical...
- lamontcg 3y ago
  The PRRAR furin cleavage sequence wasn't a previously known furin cleavage pattern and its unlikely that human scientists would have tried to insert that particular pattern into the genome of a virus. We also now know of natural viruses which are very close to SARS-CoV-2 and only missing the FCS, but at the same time there has been zero evidence that WIV was ever working with SARS-CoV-2-like viruses when their focus was on SARS-CoV-1 like viruses. And the natural spillover event is the leading theory in the intelligence community, from the ODNI report: > The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. > The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons. > The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting. > Almost all IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Most agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not laboratory-adapted; some are unable to make a determination. All IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon. The natural spillover theory is the leading theory 5-to-3 compared to other theories and only DoE and the FBI think that the lab leak was more likely. Genetic engineering is not a well-supported theory. And I don't know what evidence DoE or FBI could have that CIA/NSA doesn't that leads them to the conclusion that it was a lab leak. > People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. You haven't presented any scientific facts. And then you pivoted into conspiracy theories about scientists. Yeah, there was a scientist early on who looked at the FCS and got startled by it and thought it was a smoking gun, and then after considering the scientific evidence he changed his mind. Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking.
kristopolous 3y ago
[flagged]
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - kristopolous 3y ago
        [flagged]
        zmgsabst 3y ago
        You can be snarky, but that doesn’t change the situation: You can’t reply substantively. You’re a beacon of wisdom and wit!
        kristopolous 3y ago
        You called me a bunch of names, used classic harassment tactics and now you're negging me. I'll continue to respond to you by stepping over these tired traps you're trying to set.
        zmgsabst 3y ago
        You threw out a fallacy first, responded to pointing that out with dismissive snark, then whine when people call you positive names? I think that’s because you’re uncomfortable with the fact I called out your fallacy and told the truth — you’re unable to respond substantively. That kind of fallacy, then crying about how you’re the victim when people point it out, is a great example of bad faith — but why show good faith to That Team (TM)? You’re a paragon of virtue.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago

> That's a really good way to handle it. Oh you were serious? Yea I guess I don’t get where anyone would get all that nonsense from. It’s nothing more than a coincidence that the first people that got sick worked in and around China’s only level4 bio lab, that the NIH was confirmed to 1-degree indirectly funding gain of function research on sars coronaviruses… then after the virus was out the Chinese government came in to prevent access to that facility and it’s data. I mean… how racist do you have to be to give any credit to the conspiracy theory that it didn’t come from a wet market near that lab?

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

Here we go again... Covid was an extreme case of "this is the only truth, everyone else has rocks for brains", and then the truth changing overnight. Masks don't help, you don't need them, just wash your hands, to you must wear a mask, vaccinated people don't get sick, don't spread the virus, to whoops, heart issues are just a conspiracy thory, to countries stopping use of specific vaccines due to heart issues. Don't be like that, accept that other theories are possible, and that we don't know the whole truth yet.

kube-system 3y ago
This is a revisionist interpretation of history. The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first. And in regards to the behavior of the virus, recommendations were always based on the best understanding of the virus at the time and were updated as those understandings changed. Public health guidance isn't "the science", it is a snapshot of professional interpretation of science at a single point in time.
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  We're not talking about scientific process, which changes with new evidence, we're talking about calling people as "heads filled with rocks" for suggesting that the current recommendations are bad/wrong/inapropriate/...., censoring them from social networks, calling them covid deniers, conspiracy theorists, having their wikipedia edits removed, doxing them, and in some cases, even doing stuff that affects their livelyhood, possible medical licences etc., then having the 'truth' change, not acknowledge that 'we' were wrong, and 'they' were right and apologizing, but again, doing all those things to the next group (eg. the ones who bought and wore masks in the time when it was "enough to just wash your hands" were "attacked" first, then the "attack" moved over to the ones who didn't want to wear a mask). If someone (from the government, national 'cdc', whoever) stood up infront of the cameras, said "we fucked up, masks are really needed, we thought so otherwise and gave bad advice, we're sorry, please wear masks", then sure... some will get mad, because their relatives died by following the advice, but for most, it would be a decent thing done by their governments... but banning people who suggested that we need masks, and then banning people who suggested that we didn't need masks without unbanning the first group, is, well... stupid. > The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first. Oh yeah, just a thing I'd like to see with people in power, scientists in doctors... "we lied to you, because we couldn't fill out order forms in time, you could have died by following our advice, but here's new advice, we're totally not lying now, whoopsie, sorry!" (but without the 'sorry'). How am I supposed to trust them now, when they recommend something else?
  - 3y ago

kbutler 3y ago

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wr... """ The mainstream media downplayed—and even denied—the scientific theory that COVID-19 emerged from the WIV. Nicholas Wade testified about the campaign to discredit the lab leak theory. He pointed out that scientists kept in line with the natural origin camp led by Drs. Fauci and Collins because of their dependence on government grants and that the media failed to challenge the forced narrative. All witnesses agreed that the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab is not a conspiracy theory. """

explaininjs 3y ago
Also don't forget Fauci payed WIV to study bat coronaviruses. But since no document exists saying his money went directly to developing this particular coronavirus, we are supposed to take this as a nothing-burger. > In 2014, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the part of the NIH headed by Fauci, awarded a $3.4 million grant to the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, which aims to protect people from viruses that jump from species to species. > The group hired the virology lab in Wuhan to conduct genetic analyses of bat coronaviruses collected in Yunnan province, about 800 miles southwest of Wuhan. EcoHealth Alliance paid the lab $598,500 over five years. The lab had secured approval from both the U.S. State Department and the NIH. > That the NIAID funded the project is not in question. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/02/09/covid-dr-anthony-fauci-did-not-fund-research-tied-creation/4450338001/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...

zmgsabst 3y ago

What specific evidence lends credence to the “overwhelming scientific consensus” you claim? There’s still no known natural precursor and the only thing we see with a similar Furin cleavage site (which greatly enhanced the virality) doesn’t look like the backbone of the virus. The only US intelligence agency which assessed the situation with moderate confidence was the one who concluded that it was a lab leak. The natural origin conclusion only received low confidence. Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. You seem to be ignoring the actual scientific data, the work of intelligence agencies, and the documented human aspects which impacted this. But yeah, keep throwing that abuse out there to shame others because they don’t recite the headlines as good as you. Edit: People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. Are they self-aware enough to realize they were fishing for a pretense to ignore you?

lucubratory 3y ago
>Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. Are you self-aware enough to know that this paragraph gives the game away that your whole comment is conspiratorial nonsense, or does it feel normal to you to theorise that some US public health official who got caught up in partisan US politics is personally intimidating scientists into agreeing with scientific consensus, and rewarding them with grants for doing so?
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Scientists have been caught red handed lying about lab leak https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical-of https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical...
lamontcg 3y ago
The PRRAR furin cleavage sequence wasn't a previously known furin cleavage pattern and its unlikely that human scientists would have tried to insert that particular pattern into the genome of a virus. We also now know of natural viruses which are very close to SARS-CoV-2 and only missing the FCS, but at the same time there has been zero evidence that WIV was ever working with SARS-CoV-2-like viruses when their focus was on SARS-CoV-1 like viruses. And the natural spillover event is the leading theory in the intelligence community, from the ODNI report: > The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. > The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons. > The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting. > Almost all IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Most agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not laboratory-adapted; some are unable to make a determination. All IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon. The natural spillover theory is the leading theory 5-to-3 compared to other theories and only DoE and the FBI think that the lab leak was more likely. Genetic engineering is not a well-supported theory. And I don't know what evidence DoE or FBI could have that CIA/NSA doesn't that leads them to the conclusion that it was a lab leak. > People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. You haven't presented any scientific facts. And then you pivoted into conspiracy theories about scientists. Yeah, there was a scientist early on who looked at the FCS and got startled by it and thought it was a smoking gun, and then after considering the scientific evidence he changed his mind. Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking.

kristopolous 3y ago

[flagged]

zmgsabst 3y ago
[flagged]
- kristopolous 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - kristopolous 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - zmgsabst 3y ago
        You can be snarky, but that doesn’t change the situation: You can’t reply substantively. You’re a beacon of wisdom and wit!
        kristopolous 3y ago
        You called me a bunch of names, used classic harassment tactics and now you're negging me. I'll continue to respond to you by stepping over these tired traps you're trying to set.
        zmgsabst 3y ago
        You threw out a fallacy first, responded to pointing that out with dismissive snark, then whine when people call you positive names? I think that’s because you’re uncomfortable with the fact I called out your fallacy and told the truth — you’re unable to respond substantively. That kind of fallacy, then crying about how you’re the victim when people point it out, is a great example of bad faith — but why show good faith to That Team (TM)? You’re a paragon of virtue.