A civil discussion on the origin of SARS-CoV-2

[Valcazar]

I missed this when it came out a couple of weeks ago.
Very nice conversation among some scientists about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 among people who disagree on where the evidence is right now.
(One very pro-zoonotic, one leaning that way, one who leans a bit more lab, and one who is among the stronger proponents of the lab origins (Alina Chan, who has a book on it coming out soon).
It's about one hour.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

WHO is also continuing to pursue it: https://www.science.org/content/art...member-panel-restart-study-pandemic-s-origins

 

[basketcase]

Things like this are why I trust the scientific process; people evaluate evidence and test their claims without worrying about the politics.

Of course that all gets ruined when the media (or social media) post and political activists talk without understanding what is actually being said.

 

[Boss Nass]

TL;DR. I'm going with zoonotic. The infamous 'wet markets' are easy breeding grounds for pathogens. Every seasonal flu comes from China, from what I've heard.

 

[Valcazar]

TL;DR. I'm going with zoonotic. The infamous 'wet markets' are easy breeding grounds for pathogens. Every seasonal flu comes from China, from what I've heard.

I'm still leaning zoonotic as strongly preferred, but this definitely moved my priors on the lab escape scenario up some.

 

[K Douglas]

Things like this are why I trust the scientific process; people evaluate evidence and test their claims without worrying about the politics.

Of course that all gets ruined when the media (or social media) post and political activists talk without understanding what is actually being said.

Actually you don't believe in the scientific process. You may think that you do but you don't. You are a sucker. You have fallen into the traps of 'consensus' and political science masquerading as real science to support government agendas. Eisenhower warned us about this in 1960, it seems that he was quite the visionary.

 

[K Douglas]

I'm still leaning zoonotic as strongly preferred, but this definitely moved my priors on the lab escape scenario up some.

Just a major coincidence that they were doing gain of function research in a laboratory just miles from the Wuhan market. Nothing to see here, move on then.

 

[Drakarys]

PATIENT ZERO

 

[Valcazar]

Just a major coincidence that they were doing gain of function research in a laboratory just miles from the Wuhan market. Nothing to see here, move on then.

Just a major coincidence that it started in a place known for transporting animals and selling them at market where they can be in repeated contact with people. Nothing to see here, move on then.

Sorry to break it to you, but neither of those things is dispositive.
You might also have noticed, if you decided to listen to the discussion, that Alina Chan brings up that very point.

 

[Valcazar]

Actually you don't believe in the scientific process. You may think that you do but you don't. You are a sucker. You have fallen into the traps of 'consensus' and political science masquerading as real science to support government agendas. Eisenhower warned us about this in 1960, it seems that he was quite the visionary.

I am going to give you credit for referencing another part of his Farewell Address (1961, btw) than the much more famous "Military-Industrial Complex" part.

 

[basketcase]

Actually you don't believe in the scientific process. You may think that you do but you don't. You are a sucker. You have fallen into the traps of 'consensus' and political science masquerading as real science to support government agendas. Eisenhower warned us about this in 1960, it seems that he was quite the visionary.

Funny coming from you. But sure, keep pretending consensus is a bad thing. In reality it is hundreds or thousands of experts looking at the evidence and coming to the same conclusion. Feel free to disagree because some rando on youtube says differently but I'll stick with the experts.

 

[K Douglas]

Funny coming from you. But sure, keep pretending consensus is a bad thing. In reality it is hundreds or thousands of experts looking at the evidence and coming to the same conclusion. Feel free to disagree because some rando on youtube says differently but I'll stick with the experts.

Science advances when hypotheses are challenged vigorously. Science often stagnates when consensus is claimed. Even worse when its claimed fraudulently (as in the case of man made climate change)

 

[Rako3]

How much easier it is to go through life hating and blaming. If it came about naturally, it's hard to be furious. But if the Chinese government intentionally created it to undermine the West and gain control of the world, well WOW, now I can REALLY hate the Chinese!

If you recall the Donald Trump playbook, anything that went right was his doing (regardless of whether he had any hand in it) and anything that went wrong was the fault of someone else. 100% of the time. So of course this entire pandemic, with 700,000 people dying in his country, have to be the result of a Chinese plot. He personally did everything right! In fact, if anyone else had been in charge, everyone in the country would be dead now! Etc etc.

Gotta cultivate that hate. So the idea that it could be an unintended accident -- well, forget that!

 

[jcpro]

The discussion is pointless without at least some evidence. So, what do we have, here?

NIH Letter Made Public — Fauci lied to Congress about Wuhan research…

Letter Made Public Today — NIH corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. NIH states that EcoHealth …

citizenfreepress.com

 

[kherg007]

Gotta read the letter. It says clearly the work DOES NOT meet the definition of gain of function. It says one experiment showed a variation of the virus - one genetically quite distant from sars-cov-2 - did cause additional sickness, and that should have been reported within 30 days as per the grant conditions.

Thus most of the interpretations of this letter as proving they funded gain of function are dead wrong.
Again, read the fucking letter.

 

[jcpro]

Gotta read the letter. It says clearly the work DOES NOT meet the definition of gain of function. It says one experiment showed a variation of the virus - one genetically quite distant from sars-cov-2 - did cause additional sickness, and that should have been reported within 30 days as per the grant conditions.

Thus most of the interpretations of this letter as proving they funded gain of function are dead wrong.
Again, read the fucking letter.

I did, ALL of it.

 

[poopypants]

Wet markets exist in China because the Chinese believe in their kooky Chinese medicine that the more you torture an animal when you kill it, the more adrenaline that runs through its body, the more tender the meat. They believe this process gives them good health and luck. That is why we are in this mess.

 

[squeezer]

How much easier it is to go through life hating and blaming. If it came about naturally, it's hard to be furious. But if the Chinese government intentionally created it to undermine the West and gain control of the world, well WOW, now I can REALLY hate the Chinese!

If you recall the Donald Trump playbook, anything that went right was his doing (regardless of whether he had any hand in it) and anything that went wrong was the fault of someone else. 100% of the time. So of course this entire pandemic, with 700,000 people dying in his country, have to be the result of a Chinese plot. He personally did everything right! In fact, if anyone else had been in charge, everyone in the country would be dead now! Etc etc.

Gotta cultivate that hate. So the idea that it could be an unintended accident -- well, forget that!

Remember when Lard Ass loved the Chinese leader? He boasted how the love was a 2-way street until COVID put the dumbass in the cross-hairs because of the way he mishandled the pandemic and then it was all China's fault. LOL

Trump on China’s Xi: ‘We love each other’

US president says relations with China are at an all-time high.

www.politico.eu

 

[kherg007]

I did, ALL of it.

We're supposed to be civil, so thank you jc.

 

[jcpro]

Another take on the newest developments

Did NIH just admit to funding gain of function research in Wuhan?

hotair.com

 

[basketcase]

Science advances when hypotheses are challenged vigorously. ...

And despite your conspiracy mindset, that is constantly being done. With all that studies going on, the hypotheses in question are still holding up as the best possible explanations.