Wuhan Lab - Covid

[boringblock_21]

I don’t consider you, or anybody on this thread, who believes the lab escape hypothesis to be an idiot btw. Genuinely. I don’t know who you are or what you do. But I know that you have shown a willingness to go and read about things and I think the virtue of curiosity is an admirable thing.

Regarding the CDC director, I don’t know why he said what he said. I don’t believe he provided any evidence, so for me it goes back to not believing blanket statements or referrals. Regarding being irresponsible, I think Redfield has a somewhat chequered history on that front.

 

[Lefty]

Thanks, so from my idiots perspective I don't actually see anything from work done within the institute but from people affiliated with it which makes sense.

Why do you think people like the CDC director and the chief virologist would make statements saying they think it's a lab leak? It seems mad to me to be so irresponsible with idiots like me around.

It wasn't always a wild theory, just an unsubstantiated one and an unlikely one. Now it is wild and unsubstantiated and very very unlikely.

I agree it was a tad, more than a tad, irresponsible back then. Much more so to carry it on now of course, now more is known, until something new comes along that is game changing.

 

[Alvez_48]

I don’t consider you or anybody on this thread who believe the lab escape hypothesis idiots btw. Genuinely. I don’t know who you are or what you do. But I know that you have shown a willingness to go and read about things and I think the virtue of curiosity is an admirable thing.

Regarding the CDC director, I don’t know why he said what he said. I don’t believe he provided any evidence, so for me it goes back to not believing blanket statements or referrals. Regarding being irresponsible, I think Redfield has a somewhat chequered history on that front.

The Caltech chief virologist stated that it was immediately apparent to him and his staff that it was from a lab due to the mutations being impossible in nature.

Why would he say that?

 

[Alvez_48]

It wasn't always a wild theory, just an unsubstantiated one and an unlikely one. Now it is wild and unsubstantiated and very very unlikely.

I agree it was a tad, more than a tad, irresponsible back then. Much more so to carry it on now of course, now more is known, until something new comes along that is game changing.

It was literally a massive CNN interview from this week so for whatever reason he thought now was the time.

Why was the other version of events pushed so hard initially, without any evidence either?

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

Right let's drop some facts that we do know:-

I have an image of you turning a chair round and sitting on it backwards before saying this.

 

[Lefty]

The Caltech chief virologist stated that it was immediately apparent to him and his staff that it was from a lab due to the mutations being impossible in nature.

Why would he say that?

Excellent question. No shame on you for heeding the word of someone that eminent.

 

[boringblock_21]

If the mutations are impossible in nature, what does that mean? They’re engineered by man? If so, I would want to see the evidence of that, because any technique to genetically manipulate the virus that we know of would leave a trace.

Ultimately, I can’t account for the things other people in science say. But my rule is that if they don’t provide evidence or an explanation that demonstrates their understanding, I don’t believe them.

 

[Alvez_48]

If the mutations are impossible in nature, what does that mean? They’re engineered by man? If so, I would want to see the evidence of that, because any technique to genetically manipulate the virus that we know of would leave a trace.

Ultimately, I can’t account for the things other people in science say. But my rule is that if they don’t provide evidence or an explanation that demonstrates their understanding, I don’t believe them.

I'm not looking down the microscope I'm just an idiot who looks at the coincidences and then when people in such high positions then say those things put 2 and 2 together.

There's no evidence for the nature belief you have so why would you imply he's lying?

To me it should be an open discussion.. but a narrative was set and as you've seen by the people attacking me on this thread no discussion can be had anymore.

Thank you for your input, I respect it and will change my worthless opinion from likely to I have no idea anymore.

 

[boringblock_21]

I’m not implying that anybody is lying. To be clear, I’ve not seen the comments of the CalTech guy.

I’m also not asking you to look down a microscope. I’m simply replying to your point the viral mutations are impossible in nature, meaning that must have been engineered by hand. In which case I expect somebody to show me the evidence of that.

I don’t think it’s true to say there is no evidence for the evolution of the virus in nature. There’s no direct link yet, but the pathway can be hypothesised and relatives of the virus exist in other species.

 

[boringblock_21]

I'm not looking down the microscope I'm just an idiot who looks at the coincidences and then when people in such high positions then say those things put 2 and 2 together.

There's no evidence for the nature belief you have so why would you imply he's lying?

To me it should be an open discussion.. but a narrative was set and as you've seen by the people attacking me on this thread no discussion can be had anymore.

Thank you for your input, I respect it and will change my worthless opinion from likely to I have no idea anymore.

Thank you for engaging. I honestly just wanted to understand what the train of thought was so I appreciate it.

 

[Scrote]

To me it should be an open discussion.. but a narrative was set and as you've seen by the people attacking me on this thread no discussion can be had anymore.

If you wanted an open discussion you wouldn't post a list of "known facts" that included obviously incorrect information and then criticise the people querying the 'evidence' you're presenting.

 

[Alvez_48]

If you wanted an open discussion you wouldn't post a list of "known facts" that included obviously incorrect information and then criticise the people querying the 'evidence' you're presenting.

It is a fact, it was just the incorrect specific wording which was corrected in my posting but yet again, you have nothing else to add.

You be careful with your grammar and spelling in future I'll be on you like a hawk.

You didn't query **** you just had a go and didn't engage in any of it.

You could have said 'im not sure on the other pieces of information but there's a slight correction to your last point it should state this, the difference could confuse some.'

 

[SmallTown]

If you wanted an open discussion you wouldn't post a list of "known facts" that included obviously incorrect information and then criticise the people querying the 'evidence' you're presenting.

I think he got upset because in typical Alvez style he comes out with utterly unwavering statements in his first post. Using words like "certain" then gets all upset when everyone turns out to be less certain than him. It's a similar issue I had to Randy. He has theories which may or may not be true. But he says them with such forceful authority. Then goes in a strop when people question his absolute "proof"

 

[Alvez_48]

I think he got upset because in typical Alvez style he comes out with utterly unwavering statements in his first post. Using words like "certain" then gets all upset when everyone turns out to be less certain than him. It's a similar issue I had to Randy. He has theories which may or may not be true. But he says them with such forceful authority. Then goes in a strop when people question his absolute "proof".

I didn't use any of those terms, the only stropper here is you. I enjoy the fire of discussion, I just give as good as I get

 

[SmallTown]

There is evidence you cretin

Oh dear that looks like someone who's a bit too certain. Having a story because someone doubts his flimsy and circumstantial evidence

 

[Alvez_48]

You're smileys unfortunately betray just how upset you are. I'm sorry for my part in that.

There is evidence the cretin comment was just for @BoroMart because I like him. He knows and gets this and gave me some straight back.

Now off with you I'm currently smashing out a gym session so say what you will, if you wish to believe you win go ahead.

 

[Scrote]

It is a fact, it was just the incorrect specific wording which was corrected in my posting but yet again, you have nothing else to add.

You be careful with your grammar and spelling in future I'll be on you like a hawk.

You didn't query **** you just had a go and didn't engage in any of it.

You could have said 'im not sure on the other pieces of information but there's a slight correction to your last point it should state this, the difference could confuse some.'

It's not about grammar or spelling - that's just deflection. The "incorrect specific wording" was vital to the point you were making:

5) A furin cleavage site is in the virus which is not possessed by any other known coronavirus. Suggests manipulation during gain of function research.

It was easily checked. Many coronaviruses have furin cleavage sites.

Some of the other points require more in-depth checking (some of which other people have done and also come to the conclusion your "known facts" are anything but).

You could have said, "Oh, thanks for checking and pointing out something which might make the Wuhan-Lab hypothesis less credible."

Instead you called me an idiot.

As for the CNN interview with Robert Redfield at the CDC, a cursory glance at Wikipedia will show that he has been 'controversial' throughout his career and was appointed by Trump precisely because he was that way inclined.

 

[BoroMart]

This reminds me of the God of the Gaps reasoning.

Science can't explain something fully, yet?

Therefore God.

Sometimes it can be the Aliens of the Gaps, if the puzzle relates to a new discovery in space.

In this case it's Lab of the Gaps.

People are entitled to think what they like, but the best way in the long run is to employ as high a level of critical thinking as you can, always. Always isn't possible for us humans, but setting out with that principle is going to see you make fewer and less horrendous mistakes.

great analogy

 

[BoroMart]

I know you haven't Mart.

Like I said I'm open to discussions from all viewpoints. Science hasn't definitely proven that the virus came from animals so the lab theory amongst others is still open for discussion and discussion only. Nobody is saying it came from a lab for definite.

the opening post alluded that it was a given that this is from a lab, but yes, everything should be open for discussion

 

[Laughing]

If someone could be bothered to apply bayesian logic to this you woud end up with a very accurate probability lab v natural. I can't be botheed but would be interested to see someone elses work.