3 ms·

Who are the "actually qualified"?

by mharig 2y ago

lazyeye 2y ago
Im guessing its people with vested interests.
defrost 2y ago
You may or may not enjoy reading through a full and lively debate that was well refereed with clear rules in advance with all the known and verified facts from all sides to hand in advance. It went down like this: Lableak truther loses $100,000 in his own debate https://www.protagonist-science.com/p/lableak-truther-loses-100000-in-his https://www.protagonist-science.com/p/lableak-truther-loses-... Sure, a lableak origin is "possible" .. just very very very unlikely.
whatthesmack 2y ago
The people who claim to be "actually qualified" are the same people who run (ran?) the show at the NIH that have been actively covering up their own opinion that the lab leak of the research they were funding is the most likely source of COVID-19.
- HelloNurse 2y ago
  What about actually fun conspiracy theories? Wouldn't any plot trying to reduce population with an artificial coronavirus push lab leak theories in order to depress virus research? If you prefer Big Pharma as the bad guys, wouldn't Western pharmaceutical cartels attempting to earn billions selling vaccines attempt to discredit China as a diversion?
daly 2y ago
Vincent Racaniello https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello He does not think this started in a lab.
- mharig 2y ago
  So you refer to a consensus of the thinking of one person? I estimate the probability that the virus is 100% of natural origin to 3.21 ×10−11. And I am backed by one widely ignored article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.8348...
  - RecycledEle 2y ago
    Help me understand your math: 3.21 ×10−11 Do you mean 3.21*(-1)=-3.21 Do you mean a number between 32,100,000,000 and 321,000,000,000? Do you mean odd between 3.21:10 and 3.21:11? Thanks
    - mharig 2y ago
      Sorry. Copy'n'paste crap. But it should be obvious, and from the linked article clear, that it should be 3.21*10E-11.
yawpitch 2y ago
Virologists and epidemiologists, as opposed to a molecular biologist with no particular specialized training in either of those topics. Well, that was easy.
- tim333 2y ago
  Like the virologist who was head of the CDC at the time of the outbreak? https://youtu.be/oMlhvnMpRU0?t=117 https://youtu.be/oMlhvnMpRU0?t=117

Who are the "actually qualified"?

by mharig 2y ago

Who are the "actually qualified"?

lazyeye 2y ago

Im guessing its people with vested interests.

defrost 2y ago

You may or may not enjoy reading through a full and lively debate that was well refereed with clear rules in advance with all the known and verified facts from all sides to hand in advance. It went down like this: Lableak truther loses $100,000 in his own debate https://www.protagonist-science.com/p/lableak-truther-loses-100000-in-his https://www.protagonist-science.com/p/lableak-truther-loses-... Sure, a lableak origin is "possible" .. just very very very unlikely.

whatthesmack 2y ago

The people who claim to be "actually qualified" are the same people who run (ran?) the show at the NIH that have been actively covering up their own opinion that the lab leak of the research they were funding is the most likely source of COVID-19.

HelloNurse 2y ago
What about actually fun conspiracy theories? Wouldn't any plot trying to reduce population with an artificial coronavirus push lab leak theories in order to depress virus research? If you prefer Big Pharma as the bad guys, wouldn't Western pharmaceutical cartels attempting to earn billions selling vaccines attempt to discredit China as a diversion?

daly 2y ago

Vincent Racaniello https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello He does not think this started in a lab.

mharig 2y ago
So you refer to a consensus of the thinking of one person? I estimate the probability that the virus is 100% of natural origin to 3.21 ×10−11. And I am backed by one widely ignored article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.8348...
- RecycledEle 2y ago
  Help me understand your math: 3.21 ×10−11 Do you mean 3.21*(-1)=-3.21 Do you mean a number between 32,100,000,000 and 321,000,000,000? Do you mean odd between 3.21:10 and 3.21:11? Thanks
  - mharig 2y ago
    Sorry. Copy'n'paste crap. But it should be obvious, and from the linked article clear, that it should be 3.21*10E-11.

yawpitch 2y ago

Virologists and epidemiologists, as opposed to a molecular biologist with no particular specialized training in either of those topics. Well, that was easy.

tim333 2y ago
Like the virologist who was head of the CDC at the time of the outbreak? https://youtu.be/oMlhvnMpRU0?t=117 https://youtu.be/oMlhvnMpRU0?t=117