The Coronavirus Thread

[Cunt]

I don't understand what you are asking...

But if pErv can explain why he needed me to find an example, maybe things will clarify a bit.

All it takes for scientists to drop their training and start sputtering stupidity, is to have someone like Trump talk with them. Imagine, if you will, having him summarize your research on a sensitive topic...

[Joe]

I don't understand what you are asking...

But if pErv can explain why he needed me to find an example, maybe things will clarify a bit.

All it takes for scientists to drop their training and start sputtering stupidity, is to have someone like Trump talk with them. Imagine, if you will, having him summarize your research on a sensitive topic...

It's a simple question Cunt, and super relevant because they don't rule out a lab leak, just a non-natural origin of the virus. pErv can clarify, but refuting Trump's unsupported speculation that "did somebody do something on purpose" is not rejecting the lab leak hypothesis, which is what he was asking for an example of.

As for scientists "sputtering stupidity," I'll point out that these are credentialed microbiologists specializing in virology and you've made a big deal of Weinstein and Heyer's credentials. Maybe you should take what they say seriously, since Trump has no scientific credentials at all.

[Cunt]

I generally do take them seriously.

What does a 'non-natural origin' mean, if not a lab leak?

All I can guess is 'deliberate release', but that's a big jump which would require some evidence...

Was this a response to a scientist advocating for it, or to President Trump's statements?

I don't think so. It doesn't say, at any rate.

It simply celebrates China, and their efforts, while referring to 'non-natural' origin as a conspiracy theory.

To be accurate, it was more of a hypothesis, but they can't be expected to speak clearly on such a subject. They can't even admit Taiwan is a country, for some sciency and virology reasons. Or maybe other reasons.

[Joe]

I generally do take them seriously.

What does a 'non-natural origin' mean, if not a lab leak?

All I can guess is 'deliberate release', but that's a big jump which would require some evidence...

Odd that you don't know what that means after all the times Weinstein and Heyer have discussed the issue, but in this context man-made or enhanced would be a good description. You're right that such speculation would require evidence, and without it would be considered misinformation or conspiracy theory. Yet that's what Trump was doing.

Was this a response to a scientist advocating for it, or to President Trump's statements?

I don't think so. It doesn't say, at any rate.

It simply celebrates China, and their efforts, while referring to 'non-natural' origin as a conspiracy theory.

To be accurate, it was more of a hypothesis, but they can't be expected to speak clearly on such a subject. They can't even admit Taiwan is a country, for some sciency and virology reasons. Or maybe other reasons.

Unlike Trump, they did provide evidence to support their hypothesis though. Check out footnotes 2 through 10 for a little bedtime reading.

[Cunt]

I generally do take them seriously.

What does a 'non-natural origin' mean, if not a lab leak?

All I can guess is 'deliberate release', but that's a big jump which would require some evidence...

Odd that you don't know what that means after all the times Weinstein and Heyer have discussed the issue, but in this context man-made or enhanced would be a good description. You're right that such speculation would require evidence, and without it would be considered misinformation or conspiracy theory. Yet that's what Trump was doing.

Did he say theory? Hypothesis?

Some professionals have made that error, so it wouldn't surprise me if a sloppy talker like him did.

It's why I pointed out that you would likely be frustrated if he summarized your research.

Was this a response to a scientist advocating for it, or to President Trump's statements?

I don't think so. It doesn't say, at any rate.

It simply celebrates China, and their efforts, while referring to 'non-natural' origin as a conspiracy theory.

To be accurate, it was more of a hypothesis, but they can't be expected to speak clearly on such a subject. They can't even admit Taiwan is a country, for some sciency and virology reasons. Or maybe other reasons.

Unlike Trump, they did provide evidence to support their hypothesis though. Check out footnotes 2 through 10 for a little bedtime reading.

Um, their hypothesis that China was great, and the WHO was super? Or just the parts that don't look stupid yet?

Sounds like dishonest word games, to me.

If it originated in wildlife, that could still allow a lab leak hypothesis. In fact, that is HOW labs use gain of function research to make dangerous problems that require strict lab protocols.

So it sound like fucking liars dodging the real question with semantics, but ok, maybe they cited the research that confused them around the existence of wildlife-originating viruses in a lab setting.

I mean, how could they be expected to know the difference, right?

What are you trying to prove, Joe? That the frenzy to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis was done honestly?

Or that each example is communicated so carefully, that no-one can be convicted of anything? It does seem to me that the ones most responsible (Fauci, for example) are highly skilled at semantic gaming and dodging questions. That doesn't mean he's guilty of anything, of course, just that he is as trustworthy as any corporate communications department release.

[Joe]

I generally do take them seriously.

What does a 'non-natural origin' mean, if not a lab leak?

All I can guess is 'deliberate release', but that's a big jump which would require some evidence...

Odd that you don't know what that means after all the times Weinstein and Heyer have discussed the issue, but in this context man-made or enhanced would be a good description. You're right that such speculation would require evidence, and without it would be considered misinformation or conspiracy theory. Yet that's what Trump was doing.

Did he say theory? Hypothesis?

Some professionals have made that error, so it wouldn't surprise me if a sloppy talker like him did.

It's why I pointed out that you would likely be frustrated if he summarized your research.

Was this a response to a scientist advocating for it, or to President Trump's statements?

I don't think so. It doesn't say, at any rate.

It simply celebrates China, and their efforts, while referring to 'non-natural' origin as a conspiracy theory.

To be accurate, it was more of a hypothesis, but they can't be expected to speak clearly on such a subject. They can't even admit Taiwan is a country, for some sciency and virology reasons. Or maybe other reasons.

Unlike Trump, they did provide evidence to support their hypothesis though. Check out footnotes 2 through 10 for a little bedtime reading.

Um, their hypothesis that China was great, and the WHO was super? Or just the parts that don't look stupid yet?

Sounds like dishonest word games, to me.

If it originated in wildlife, that could still allow a lab leak hypothesis. In fact, that is HOW labs use gain of function research to make dangerous problems that require strict lab protocols.

So it sound like fucking liars dodging the real question with semantics, but ok, maybe they cited the research that confused them around the existence of wildlife-originating viruses in a lab setting.

I mean, how could they be expected to know the difference, right?

What are you trying to prove, Joe? That the frenzy to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis was done honestly?

Or that each example is communicated so carefully, that no-one can be convicted of anything? It does seem to me that the ones most responsible (Fauci, for example) are highly skilled at semantic gaming and dodging questions. That doesn't mean he's guilty of anything, of course, just that he is as trustworthy as any corporate communications department release.

Speaking of dishonest word games, you're just tap dancing to avoid the fact that your example doesn't support your assertion.

It look's like pErv may be right, but if you want to try again, here's what he said, referring to the lab leak hypothesis.

Please provide an example of it being treated like a conspiracy theory. I certainly haven't seen that. And of course, I doubt you have either.

[Cunt]

They overtly SAY it is dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

If you can find an example of a 'stealth-edit' of articles about that, feel free to post it. If you can't, I'll consider that proof that you can't find any.

Stealth edits would be pretty clear evidence that news/media were deliberately dishonest, I think.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ti ... ar-AAKlIOr

How and why did this happen? For one, efforts to discover a natural source of the virus have failed. Second, early efforts to spotlight a lab leak often got mixed up with speculation that the virus was deliberately created as a bioweapon. That made it easier for many scientists to dismiss the lab scenario as tin-hat nonsense. But a lack of transparency by China and renewed attention to the activities of the Wuhan lab have led some scientists to say they were too quick to discount a possible link at first.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) from the start pointed to the lab’s location in Wuhan, pressing China for answers, so the history books will reward him if he turns out to be right. The Trump administration also sought to highlight the lab scenario but generally could only point to vague intelligence. The Trump administration’s messaging was often accompanied by anti-Chinese rhetoric that made it easier for skeptics to ignore its claims.

As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events, including important articles, that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored. But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people’s minds. This has led to renewed calls for a real investigation into the lab’s activities before the coronavirus emerged.

'...but was generally ignored'

I suspect this won't satisfy whatever you are uncertain about either. Maybe try restating.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The usual deceitful re-framing: 'the frenzy to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis'

A vociferous element in the right wing media world was and generally still is heavily pushing the 'CHINA done it!!!' conspiracy talking point. But to hear our leftie member tell it, the 'frenzy' is actually taking place among those who've pushed back against accepting that line of thinking without any real evidence.

[Cunt]

China DID do 'it'.

By that I mean, they lied, they disappeared whistleblowers, they obstructed investigation efforts etc. Oh, and maybe hoarded PPE early on.

As to who will wear the 'lab leak' consequences, if it turns out to be true, I am guessing the US. At least partly.

It isn't only 'Chyna' funding that particular lab.

Didn't a senator just get Fauci to bob and weave about the funding connections between the US and that lab?

[Tero]

Senile president is allowed one error
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/26/politics ... index.html
They were bats! They could fly away!

[Cunt]

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administra ... 19010.html



So, like you, he dismissed the 'lab leak hypothesis' too soon, and in his case, even followed up by stopping an investigation.

Sure would look sketchy if his family had ties to CCP money...

Good thing no-one believes in the Hunter Biden laptop and the emails discussing CCP connections...

[rainbow]

Escaped...wuhan...are you still stuck on the blue-anon script denying the possibility of a lab leak?

You don't understand the difference between possibility and probability.

It is possible that the virus was made in the US and released in Wuhan to make the Chinese look bad.

So which is more probable?

Show your calculations

[Cunt]

You are confused. I'm not surprised, with the shrunken head and all...

I was responding to Tero, who said...

Escaped...wuhan...are we still on this? You wear your conspiracy nut credentials well.

Is it possible? Of course. Anything is possible. Heck, you might even suddenly realize you were wrong about something.

But I mean, some things are not very likely.

As to which is more probable, well, you would indeed need a calculation or two. If you could do a diverse team of statisticians, who use an equity-based, inclusive approach, you might find answers you like.

But the problem isn't what precisely was claimed, the problem is that so many (and thank you for your honesty there, Tero) considered the possibility that it escaped the lab as 'conspiracy nut' territory.

Some of the ones fooled, were even smart people who are good to strangers around them. It's a shitty thing. Probably slowed down discovering whatever will be discovered.

My guess is that with John Cena being the official ambassador of Hollywood to the CCP, those fine folk at the WHO will zero in on the answer.

[rainbow]

You are confused. I'm not surprised, with the shrunken head and all...

I was responding to Tero, who said...

Escaped...wuhan...are we still on this? You wear your conspiracy nut credentials well.

Is it possible? Of course. Anything is possible. Heck, you might even suddenly realize you were wrong about something.

But I mean, some things are not very likely.

As to which is more probable, well, you would indeed need a calculation or two. If you could do a diverse team of statisticians, who use an equity-based, inclusive approach, you might find answers you like.

But the problem isn't what precisely was claimed, the problem is that so many (and thank you for your honesty there, Tero) considered the possibility that it escaped the lab as 'conspiracy nut' territory.

No the problem is the conspiracy nuts.

If you make the claim, then show the evidence.

[Cunt]

You are confused. I'm not surprised, with the shrunken head and all...

I was responding to Tero, who said...

Escaped...wuhan...are we still on this? You wear your conspiracy nut credentials well.

Is it possible? Of course. Anything is possible. Heck, you might even suddenly realize you were wrong about something.

But I mean, some things are not very likely.

As to which is more probable, well, you would indeed need a calculation or two. If you could do a diverse team of statisticians, who use an equity-based, inclusive approach, you might find answers you like.

But the problem isn't what precisely was claimed, the problem is that so many (and thank you for your honesty there, Tero) considered the possibility that it escaped the lab as 'conspiracy nut' territory.

No the problem is the conspiracy nuts.

If you make the claim, then show the evidence.

I've given evidence for the claims I made. The ones you wish I made though, I can't help you with those.