The problem is that this article is a giant claim of straw men.
Redfield argued that the virus escaped a lab, not that it was engineered. "Redfield stressed he was not implying "intentionality," and no credible scientist, including Redfield, believes the virus was man-made. " Redfield believes that it was an escaped gain-of-function pathogen: "Most of us in a lab, when trying to grow a virus, we try to help make it grow better, and better, and better, and better, and better, and better so we can do experiments and figure out about it... It's not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in the laboratory to infect the laboratory worker."
Andersen is pretending that Redfield argued that it was engineered (he never did), and points to his own paper showing it wasn't engineered (something Redfield never argued). Except that his paper says " Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise", which is precisely what you'd see as the outcome of gain-of-function research, which involves allowing a pathogen to evolve naturally, in controlled conditions at an accelerated pace.
And I'm sorry, but someone working with WHO bashing the CDC? The CDC did a way better job with COVID than the WHO.
(I've noticed how heavily people who want to excuse WIV engage in this strawman - pretending that anyone who argues for an accidental release of gain-of-function research is actually arguing for a deliberate release and/or a genetically engineered virus. Always easiest to attack an argument your opponents aren't making, isn't it?)
Oh, and for those who want to spin it as "Trump people vs. Biden people" - the Biden team isn't happy either [whitehouse.gov] with how WHO appears to be doing its best to sweep things under the rug to protect China.
Ok, is there any evidence it was released from a lab?
The lab that was studying the only natural source of the virus? The lab that was cited by the CDC for unsafe handling procedures prior to COVID? That lab very very near to where the earliest known cases occurred?
To be clear, you do realize that "released" refers to a naturally occurring virus being accidentally released?
The notions of an engineered virus or of intentional release are disinformation.
Circumstantial evidence just means evidence other than testimonial. I wouldn't call anything you mentioned evidence that this virus actually was released from that lab. It is evidence that such a release is a possibility, nothing more.
Such evidence is often justification for investigation.
Absolutely, it should be investigated. It certainly has not been ruled out based on anything I've heard of.
"Your honor, we the prosecution elect to not investigate the defendant on the basis that the smoking gun was found at his feet, not in his hands. Therefore we concur with the defense's opening statement: arguing the gun was at one point in his hands is more akin to a conspiracy theory than a case worthy of your honor's time."
"I agree with both the defense and the prosecution. Case dismissed forever. We may never know who shot my wife's lover."
So if it was accidentally released, why does all the evidence point to it having originated in caged animals?
You mean the lab very near the wet market? And the evidence the Chinese government has allowed to be collected? The same government that jailed a doctor who tried to warn other local doctors about the new virus?
Such bats actually are not sold on markets. Why would they? In that region no one eats bats. And bats make bad pets. There is no point to sell them on the market. But I would not wonder if they have nests or places under the roof where they live.
Ok, is there any evidence it was accidentally released, deliberately released, escaped, exited, originated from, transported from (or similar verb) from that lab or any other lab?
Ok, is there any evidence it was accidentally released, deliberately released, escaped, exited, originated from, transported from (or similar verb) from that lab or any other lab?
That would require a proper investigation, as the circumstantial evidence warrants. However we have a government blocking a proper investigation. A government that jailed the first doctor who warned other local doctors about the outbreak. So we have the current "no evidence" situation. However "no evidence" after a proper investigation is quite different than "no evidence" due to a lack of proper investigation. So what does one do in the latter situation, one has to focus more on the circumstantial evidence
There are definitely people on this comment thread saying lab release is the scenario best supported by the evidence. There is no evidence that it was released from that lab or any other lab.
Get a dictionary and grasp what the word evidence actually means, and what its opposite means.
Ok, is there any evidence it was released from a lab?
It spreads poorly outside. And that it spread from human to human seemly immediately (meaning there wasn't a long period of people getting COVID-19 from bats and then months/years later it starting human to human spread). Those are the marks of a virus from a lab. Its rare that wild viruses do either thing. COVID-SARS-2 does both. Also, there is seemly no Pangolin DNA in there but there does seem to be multiple different other sources, another thing that would be weird for a wild virus. And finally, t
So you're saying I can't be a mutated wild virus because? That never happens? Then why are there UK, South African & Brazilian variants? Isn't a variant a mutation? Is the version that was transmitted to the animals in the Bronx zoo a mutation and, if not, why would the Chinese engineer a virus that attacks big cats?
And that it spread from human to human seemly immediately (meaning there wasn't a long period of people getting COVID-19 from bats and then months/years later it starting human to human spread). And why would that be the case? You are just plain stupid. There is no damn reason why a virus once hopping a human is not immediately transferable to other humans. There is no stupid: oh the virus has to find a way to hop from human to human. Look at the virus brain how it is working hard and finally comes to the b
The painfully obvious theory would be that covid ESCAPED the Wuhan lab, since:
This is one of very few, if not the only lab in the world that studies such viruses.
Out of the entire world, the virus was first detected within driving distance of the Wuhan lab.
Various Chinese reporters and researchers that tried to warn people outside china had a strange tendency to either suddenly succumb to the virus or were simply disappeared.
Once the virus was acknowledged the chinese government actively prevented any WHO,
The painfully obvious theory would be that covid ESCAPED the Wuhan lab, since:
{list of coincidences}
Too many coincidences to simply dismiss out of hand the theory the virus ESCAPED the lab.
The problem is that it's just a list of coincidences. Not a proof. I doesn't prove that the virus escaped the lab. I merely points out that this shouldn't be outright excluded and some attention should be paid to this hypothesis (like
There's also a good list of coincidences pointing the other way around: - it's a family of viruses which is very common in bats, and those critters are pretty much everywhere around the globe, giving a lot of human-animal interaction opportunities.
- coronaviruses
wet market: even more people here around, and given the animals sold there in poor conditions, even more opportunity for some weird unusual disease to be brought here. I heavily doubt that "poor condition" part. After all they are supposed to be food. Especially as it is forbidden to sell living animals/or slaughter them on a market like this since 2016. With the exception of fish of course.
"Most of us in a lab, when trying to grow a virus, we try to help make it grow better, and better, and better, and better, and better, and better so we can do experiments and figure out about it."
no credible scientist, including Redfield, believes the virus was man-made. " Redfield believes that it was an escaped gain-of-function pathogen
A distinction like that seems to be splitting hairs. Few things are made from scratch. Is a virus "man-made" only if every atom is individually assembled?
Here is one of the Chinese scientists claiming it did come from the Wuhan facility. Knowing how dirty the Democrats are, I would not doubt they conspired with the Chinese to release this so Trump would not be re-elected. I sure wish some hackers would track down the truth and release it.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-new... [ndtv.com]
"Now here's something you're really going to like!"
-- Rocket J. Squirrel
'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2, Insightful)
No evidence at all, says Xi, vigorously brushing his hands together while standing on a particularly lumpy rug.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Pushing a counter-narrative doesn't change the reality!
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
It doesn't change anything of worth.
Still might be true, and still might not be.
Pointless talking about it, imo.
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that this article is a giant claim of straw men.
Redfield argued that the virus escaped a lab, not that it was engineered. "Redfield stressed he was not implying "intentionality," and no credible scientist, including Redfield, believes the virus was man-made. " Redfield believes that it was an escaped gain-of-function pathogen: "Most of us in a lab, when trying to grow a virus, we try to help make it grow better, and better, and better, and better, and better, and better so we can do experiments and figure out about it ... It's not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in the laboratory to infect the laboratory worker."
Andersen is pretending that Redfield argued that it was engineered (he never did), and points to his own paper showing it wasn't engineered (something Redfield never argued). Except that his paper says " Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise", which is precisely what you'd see as the outcome of gain-of-function research, which involves allowing a pathogen to evolve naturally, in controlled conditions at an accelerated pace.
And I'm sorry, but someone working with WHO bashing the CDC? The CDC did a way better job with COVID than the WHO.
(I've noticed how heavily people who want to excuse WIV engage in this strawman - pretending that anyone who argues for an accidental release of gain-of-function research is actually arguing for a deliberate release and/or a genetically engineered virus. Always easiest to attack an argument your opponents aren't making, isn't it?)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Oh, and for those who want to spin it as "Trump people vs. Biden people" - the Biden team isn't happy either [whitehouse.gov] with how WHO appears to be doing its best to sweep things under the rug to protect China.
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:3)
Ok, is there any evidence it was released from a lab?
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, is there any evidence it was released from a lab?
The lab that was studying the only natural source of the virus? The lab that was cited by the CDC for unsafe handling procedures prior to COVID? That lab very very near to where the earliest known cases occurred?
To be clear, you do realize that "released" refers to a naturally occurring virus being accidentally released?
The notions of an engineered virus or of intentional release are disinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
So sounds like no, just a lot of factors consistent with either possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
So sounds like no, just a lot of factors consistent with either possibility.
Seems like the concept of circumstantial evidence is alien to you. Such evidence is often justification for investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Circumstantial evidence just means evidence other than testimonial. I wouldn't call anything you mentioned evidence that this virus actually was released from that lab. It is evidence that such a release is a possibility, nothing more.
Such evidence is often justification for investigation.
Absolutely, it should be investigated. It certainly has not been ruled out based on anything I've heard of.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Your honor, we the prosecution elect to not investigate the defendant on the basis that the smoking gun was found at his feet, not in his hands. Therefore we concur with the defense's opening statement: arguing the gun was at one point in his hands is more akin to a conspiracy theory than a case worthy of your honor's time."
"I agree with both the defense and the prosecution. Case dismissed forever. We may never know who shot my wife's lover."
Re: (Score:2)
Straw man alert. I never indicated there shouldn't be investigation of the situation.
Re: (Score:1)
You failed to understand: the gun being on the ground is consistent with another man having shot the judge's wife's lover
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
So if it was accidentally released, why does all the evidence point to it having originated in caged animals?
Re: (Score:2)
So if it was accidentally released, why does all the evidence point to it having originated in caged animals?
You mean the lab very near the wet market? And the evidence the Chinese government has allowed to be collected? The same government that jailed a doctor who tried to warn other local doctors about the new virus?
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
Just takes one Asshole who sells the bats to the market instead of incinerating them.
Re: (Score:2)
Such bats actually are not sold on markets. Why would they? In that region no one eats bats. And bats make bad pets. There is no point to sell them on the market. But I would not wonder if they have nests or places under the roof where they live.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, is there any evidence it was accidentally released, deliberately released, escaped, exited, originated from, transported from (or similar verb) from that lab or any other lab?
That would require a proper investigation, as the circumstantial evidence warrants. However we have a government blocking a proper investigation. A government that jailed the first doctor who warned other local doctors about the outbreak. So we have the current "no evidence" situation. However "no evidence" after a proper investigation is quite different than "no evidence" due to a lack of proper investigation. So what does one do in the latter situation, one has to focus more on the circumstantial evidence
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:3)
No. And nobody says there is any evidence. What the guy claims is nowhere near what some people suggest he claims.
But hey, who cares if someone talks some sense. Simply raging against something we can link to Trump is much more satisfying.
Re: (Score:2)
>And nobody says there is any evidence.
There are definitely people on this comment thread saying lab release is the scenario best supported by the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
There are definitely people on this comment thread saying lab release is the scenario best supported by the evidence.
There is no evidence that it was released from that lab or any other lab.
Get a dictionary and grasp what the word evidence actually means, and what its opposite means.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, is there any evidence it was released from a lab?
It spreads poorly outside. And that it spread from human to human seemly immediately (meaning there wasn't a long period of people getting COVID-19 from bats and then months/years later it starting human to human spread). Those are the marks of a virus from a lab. Its rare that wild viruses do either thing. COVID-SARS-2 does both. Also, there is seemly no Pangolin DNA in there but there does seem to be multiple different other sources, another thing that would be weird for a wild virus. And finally, t
Re: (Score:2)
This is much better than anything else I've seen making this argument in these comments, and nice and civil to boot. Thanks.
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that it spread from human to human seemly immediately (meaning there wasn't a long period of people getting COVID-19 from bats and then months/years later it starting human to human spread).
And why would that be the case? You are just plain stupid. There is no damn reason why a virus once hopping a human is not immediately transferable to other humans. There is no stupid: oh the virus has to find a way to hop from human to human. Look at the virus brain how it is working hard and finally comes to the b
its not like the wuhan lab... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're not seriously claiming that as evidence that that's what happened this time are you?
Re: its not like the wuhan lab... (Score:2)
The painfully obvious theory would be that covid ESCAPED the Wuhan lab, since:
This is one of very few, if not the only lab in the world that studies such viruses.
Out of the entire world, the virus was first detected within driving distance of the Wuhan lab.
Various Chinese reporters and researchers that tried to warn people outside china had a strange tendency to either suddenly succumb to the virus or were simply disappeared.
Once the virus was acknowledged the chinese government actively prevented any WHO,
Works both ways (Score:2)
The painfully obvious theory would be that covid ESCAPED the Wuhan lab, since:
{list of coincidences}
Too many coincidences to simply dismiss out of hand the theory the virus ESCAPED the lab.
The problem is that it's just a list of coincidences. Not a proof.
I doesn't prove that the virus escaped the lab. I merely points out that this shouldn't be outright excluded and some attention should be paid to this hypothesis (like
There's also a good list of coincidences pointing the other way around:
- it's a family of viruses which is very common in bats, and those critters are pretty much everywhere around the globe, giving a lot of human-animal interaction opportunities.
- coronaviruses
Re: (Score:2)
wet market: even more people here around, and given the animals sold there in poor conditions, even more opportunity for some weird unusual disease to be brought here.
I heavily doubt that "poor condition" part. After all they are supposed to be food.
Especially as it is forbidden to sell living animals/or slaughter them on a market like this since 2016.
With the exception of fish of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
You literally quoted him saying it was engineered (Score:1)
That's engineering right there.
Re: (Score:2)
A distinction like that seems to be splitting hairs. Few things are made from scratch. Is a virus "man-made" only if every atom is individually assembled?
Re: (Score:1)
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe" - Carl Sagan
Re: (Score:1)