3 ms·

Not only don't I see anything objectional, I can't even figure out what bits you find objectionable. Experts talking to each other? Anyone talking to, or being

Not only don't I see anything objectional, I can't even figure out what bits you find objectionable. Experts talking to each other? Anyone talking to, or being funded by, Fauci? People changing their opinion after digging into the evidence? People disagreeing with your interpretation of the facts?

tripletao 2y ago
Is there a specific piece of scientific evidence that you believe strongly excludes unnatural origin for SARS-CoV-2 (to the point e.g. that those social media bans were justified), and that you would be willing to discuss? For example: 1. The "Proximal origins" publication that you referenced argues that SARS-CoV-2 is surely natural, because it wasn't a chimera of any two known natural viruses. 2. But I don't think that's a meaningful argument, because (as Relman said) it could be a chimera of two newly-discovered viruses. The WIV had the biggest program anywhere in the world to sample new sarbecoviruses from nature. It's obviously normal for people to change their views after obtaining new evidence; but I don't see where that evidence is. So I don't see a good reason for Andersen to change his views, but I do see a bad reason in that initially-undisclosed conflict of interest. I also see a deliberate attempt to evade FOIA obligations, which makes me suspect there might be more bad stuff that I'm unaware of. That's what I think is objectionable. A majority of Americans now believe that SARS-CoV-2 definitely or probably arose from a research accident, including a majority of Democrats: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45389-americans-believe-covid-origin-lab https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45389-americans-b... Countless highly-credentialed scientists have made the arguments, including professors at top universities and Nobel prize winners. Baric still thinks natural is more likely, but even he acknowledges the uncertainty and has criticized the WIV's safety standards. So if all this genuinely seems incomprehensible to you, then you're in a very unusual place.

tripletao 2y ago

Is there a specific piece of scientific evidence that you believe strongly excludes unnatural origin for SARS-CoV-2 (to the point e.g. that those social media bans were justified), and that you would be willing to discuss? For example: 1. The "Proximal origins" publication that you referenced argues that SARS-CoV-2 is surely natural, because it wasn't a chimera of any two known natural viruses. 2. But I don't think that's a meaningful argument, because (as Relman said) it could be a chimera of two newly-discovered viruses. The WIV had the biggest program anywhere in the world to sample new sarbecoviruses from nature. It's obviously normal for people to change their views after obtaining new evidence; but I don't see where that evidence is. So I don't see a good reason for Andersen to change his views, but I do see a bad reason in that initially-undisclosed conflict of interest. I also see a deliberate attempt to evade FOIA obligations, which makes me suspect there might be more bad stuff that I'm unaware of. That's what I think is objectionable. A majority of Americans now believe that SARS-CoV-2 definitely or probably arose from a research accident, including a majority of Democrats: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45389-americans-believe-covid-origin-lab https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45389-americans-b... Countless highly-credentialed scientists have made the arguments, including professors at top universities and Nobel prize winners. Baric still thinks natural is more likely, but even he acknowledges the uncertainty and has criticized the WIV's safety standards. So if all this genuinely seems incomprehensible to you, then you're in a very unusual place.