When you say the virus originated in a nature and not the lab, are you saying that the virus was not collected from a natural sample by lab scientists, stored (and studied) in the lab, and then subsequently released by incompetent action? If so, what evidence do you have of that?
He doesn't need to prove evidence that that didn't happen, any more than you need to provide evidence that you didn't film some CP this morning.
The onus is on you to provide evidence that your claim is plausible, much less probable, even less factual.
Actually, he does. He claimed to have evidence "it didn't come from a lab." The GP was simply asking him to provide the evidence to support his claim. I believe he misspoke, doesn't understand the difference, or was being deliberately misleading, and should have said he was pointing to evidence that "it didn't originate in a lab."
Actually, he does. He claimed to have evidence "it didn't come from a lab."
Actually, he doesn't.
This is a pretty simple concept.
If you claim: "Every cat alive today comes from space."
And I claim: "There is ample evidence that they in fact do not."
I do not need to scour all of space looking for a lack of evidence of cats.
I merely need to find evidence of a cat being born on Earth.
In that vein, the evidence he provided shows with high levels of certainty that the virus originated naturally.
That precludes it originating in a lab, and therefor he does not need to prove that it
You're logic impaired, and don't understand English.
And yet you're the one trying to argue in support of a conspiracy theory.
The claim was it didn't come from a lab, not that it didn't originate in a lab.
There's no evidence for or against whether or not it passed through a lab.
The only evidence, period, is that it didn't need to.
So again I ask, why are we even considering it?
The answer to that is obvious to everyone around you. Because you're sucked into a conspiracy theory.
The claims of a virus originating in nature, and then escaping from a lab are not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps Xi himself did a little tweaking of it in his office.
Maybe he did.
Of course it sounds absurd but the point is that "absence of evidence" argument works if all places where evidence could have found have been looked into.
The problem is the deliberate closed nature of the Chinese Govt that weakens the "absence of evidence" argument. You will never be sure that it didn't come out of a lab.
Of course it sounds absurd but the point is that "absence of evidence" argument works if all places where evidence could have found have been looked into.
Works in what way? It's a pointless argument.
You will never be sure that it didn't come out of a lab.
Yes, for precisely the same reason that I cannot prove that God does not exist.
All I can say is that, "all available evidence supports a theory that doesn't require a God, and in fact is consistent with the lack of existence of one."
Replace God with lab.
This is an argument from gaps of evidence, and it's fucking stupid.
Nobody is arguing whether it's logically tenable. They're arguing that there's no reason to come to the conclusion based merely upon the evidence.
It's as logically tenable as the theory that the Judaic God created the Earth.
With the second one, "prove" is synonymous with "be sure"
So as such, feel free to re-read what I wrote as:
"Yes, for precisely the same reason that I cannot be sure that God does not exist."
Knowing what we know about the evolution of SARS-CoV variants from reservoir to outbreak, in order for it to have originated in a lab, it would have already had to have been virulent somewhere else, because these things require lots of interactions between species, including humans.
The lab in question was literally known to be studying transmission of coronaviruses [politico.com], and also known to have several risky conditions. That is frankly ample reason to believe that the source of the outbreak was the lab. It does not prove it, but it is a strong indicator, especially given that the first case had no connection to the wet market [businessinsider.com]. You are willfully ignoring the known facts in order to justify your prejudices against people you think are prejudiced. You, sir, are a hypocrite, in addition to bei
I actually agree that this post was mis-moderated.
I think however that you perhaps have earned yourself a reputation of being a troll, resulting in your posts not being taken at face value.
Back to our discussion of probabilities.
What's more probable? That people simply disagree with you, or that all the points in the argument that you ignore to keep beating the same 2 circumstantial points you have has taught people to not bother reading what you write?
Yes, there's an army of CCP propagandists working overtime to control the narrative. I'm seeing the term 'conspiracy theorist' being thrown around, that must be in their current playbook (do you want to be labelled a kook by your friends? No? Then you'd better comply with the narrative).
Where "the narrative" means "current scientific consensus", then sure.
There's another possibility.
That you are a kook.
I for one bear no love for the CCP, and I sincerely doubt anyone on this site really does.
So let's turn your claim around,
I see a lot of Trumptard propagandists working overtime to control the narrative. I'm seeing the term 'CCP shill' being thrown around, that must be their current playbook (do you want to be labelled a commie agent? No? Then you'd better comply with the narrative).
Point taken about labeling people, thanks. To be fair, I didn't call you a 'CCP shill'. I do believe that CCP propagandists exist (and post on this site). I hope you don't think that belief is 'kooky'. Please don't be sorry to inform me of your opinion that I am a 'kook'. This is the United States, you are free to express yourself. I believe this is a sacred right, a right that Chinese citizens do not have.
I didn't vote for Donald Trump.
After he was elected I was pleased that we finally had a pr
The lab in question was literally known to be studying transmission of coronaviruses
So?
This doesn't change the fact that it's far more plausible that the lab had nothing to do with it.
Again, your refusal to accept that indicates to me that you have a prejudicial conclusion already.
The people that matter aren't claiming it couldn't have come from a lab. They claiming that it looks very much like something that came out of some natural high-density population, most likely with a zoonotic intermediate vector.
especially given that the first case had no connection to the wet market [businessinsider.com].
Wait, now you're taking the Chinese' word toward the origin?
It's almost like you'
"This doesn't change the fact that it's far more plausible that the lab had nothing to do with it."
So, The Wuhan Institute of Virology is in Wuhan, in Hubei province.
In 2012 Researchers from the Wuhan lab investigated the deaths of some miners cleaning bat dung from a mine in Mojiang, Yunnan province. The symptoms of these miners were very similar to Covid. The samples they collected were of RaTG13 which is the closest relative of Sars-CoV-2 found in the wild, 96% similar. The Wuhan lab also had tissue samp
In 2012 Researchers from the Wuhan lab investigated the deaths of some miners cleaning bat dung from a mine in Mojiang, Yunnan province. The symptoms of these miners were very similar to Covid. The samples they collected were of RaTG13 which is the closest relative of Sars-CoV-2 found in the wild, 96% similar. The Wuhan lab also had tissue samples from the dead miners sent to them as well.
96% similar is not similar in the way you're thinking at all.
It infers a strong relationship, but that's a considerably larger difference than between us and Gorillas.
All bat-sourced coronaviruses likely have a common ancestor- so this isn't weird.
What 96% says, is "you're on the right path, but you haven't found it yet"
What are the odds that Covid begins to spread in Wuhan, and not in Mojiang, where these miners died, and it wasn't because of research going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
As I mentioned, SARS-CoV-1, which was also traced back to Yunnan, had it's initial outbreak in Guangdong. What Chinese laboratory conducting top secret coronavirus research was responsibl
The samples they collected were of RaTG13 which is the closest relative of Sars-CoV-2 found in the wild, 96% similar. Perhaps you want to reread what you wrote. I took the liberty to emphasize one part.
I mean what are the odds? Zero.
Huh, that's a little weird? The only thing weird is your lack of IQ.
I suggest to google a bit and figure how similar in terms of percentage the genome of an ape is with a human. Good luck, I guess your IQ is sufficient to figure that.
Very interesting article; I hadn't heard that the wet market had been ruled out as the origin. The article also states that there is no evidence it was released from a lab.
There has definitely been no hard evidence presented that it was released from a lab.
There is equally no hard evidence it was not released from a lab. But proving a negative is not a thing you can reasonably do anyway, unless you prove some other positive.
It is plausible that the transmission occurred in the wild.
It's also plausible that the transmission occurred in a lab.
I only am tired of the idea that there's no evidence that it could have come from the lab. The evidence is all circumstantial, so it does
There are strong indications at the moment that the virus actually originated in Europe and was brought by tourists into the Wuhan region. At the oldest confirmed blood samples - which got reexamined beginning of this year - are from early October 2019. However that does not really fit to the "chinese bat theory", it would kind of imply that tourist got infected, brought it to Europe infected others which brought it back to Wuhan.
BTW: who had thought that that region is a tourist attraction for Italians, Span
There are strong indications at the moment that the virus actually originated in Europe and was brought by tourists into the Wuhan region.
I went looking for sources to back this up.
"There's no doubt that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, the highly contagious disease that's so far infected more than 4.2 million people globally and killed nearly 290,000, originated in China."
"Previously, researchers in Europe have reported1,2,3 finding antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in samples taken at blood banks from November 2019 onwards. Ben Embarek says this doesn’t necessarily suggest the virus originated in
That is old news:D The first link is from MAY 2020!!!
I talked about recent discoveries, in OLD blood probes from 2019.
Na, I wont search the links now.
Point is we have sewage probes, some countries seem to make a daily collection and keep them for future analysis, and blood probes from old patients from 2019, which had strange side symptoms, which we now know can happen with COVID. So some smart doctors searched the archives and analyzed blood from that time from patients that had such strange symptoms but c
Occam's razor. Which argument has the most per-suppositions and premises (not which one's the simplest, BTW).
#1, The lab narrative says that a high security lab (it's among the highest) was handling a virus that has a very hard time transmitting through touch and almost always transmits through breathing.
#2, The hypothesis held by scientific consensus, is that the virus can be traced back to deforestation and wet markets massivel
You have 2 hypotheses:
1) the virus emerged naturally in China, making the leap from bats to humans in the wild creating an outbreak. If this is true then the outbreak could have first observed anywhere in China's 3.7 million square miles of territory.
2) The virus is associated with coronavirus research at a lab. If that is true you would expect the outbreak to be detected in close proximity (say within 20 miles) of one of the 2 main viral research labs in China (in Wuhan and Beijing). which would cover
OK, fair enough. I'm saying that the fact that prevailing opinion is that the virus came from nature (not bio-engineered) does not rule out release from the WIV due to incompetence. Therefore, my (and Dr. Redfield's) opinion that it was a lab release is plausible and valid. Unfortunately for my opinion (fortunately for yours?), the CCP destroyed all evidence within the lab, and disappear Chinese citizens who challenge their narrative. I believe the CCP says that the US Army planted the virus in Wuhan.
I'm saying that the fact that prevailing opinion is that the virus came from nature (not bio-engineered) does not rule out release from the WIV due to incompetence.
And I'm saying *nothing* can possibly rule that out.
So, knowing that we cannot possibly rule out a lab origin, and knowing that there exists *evidence* of natural origin, the natural origin is the legitimate hypothesis, and the lab hypothesis is string theory.
Well, one way a lab release could be ruled out would be through a thorough examination of the lab's documented activity and stored virus samples. The CCP destroyed all of that evidence, so all that's left is the 'natural origin' evidence.
Oh horse shit.
Quit lying.
Even if they hadn't done something that is again- entirely not weird, and CDC has the authority to force our labs to do the same exact thing- you would just argue that they hid the *real* evidence.
You're a conspiracy theorist. You fucking know it. We know it.
How is it lying to say that if the CCP hadn't destroyed the WIV evidentiary materials we could've ruled out a lab origin of this pandemic? I feel bad for the Chinese people, their oppressive communist rulers created this suspicion by hiding. The best case for them would be to lay it out for all to see, and show that the lab wasn't the cause. That's impossible now.
You believe what you believe in spite of what the evidence suggests. Acting like you could be convinced, "if only [some moving, and unreachable target]..." is just you trying to smear a veneer of intellectual honesty onto your otherwise intellectually dishonest posts.
I feel bad for the Chinese people
Who doesn't?
their oppressive communist rulers created this suspicion by hiding.
I found the use of the word communist as interesting, because it was in no way required for that sentence.
This is one of many reasons I have for believing that you've really just got some "Better Dea
You believe what you believe in spite of what the evidence suggests. Acting like you could be convinced, "if only [some moving, and unreachable target]..." is just you trying to smear a veneer of intellectual honesty onto your otherwise intellectually dishonest posts.
OK, I see. You are saying that I am lying when I say I we could rule out lab origin by examining lab's operations and contents. You are saying that I'm being dishonest about acceptance of a natural-origin theory after an unimpeded, unfettered investigation.
I feel bad for the Chinese people
Who doesn't?
Apparently citizens of China (or, they don't feel bad enough to get rid of the CCP)
their oppressive communist rulers created this suspicion by hiding.
I found the use of the word communist as interesting, because it was in no way required for that sentence.
This is one of many reasons I have for believing that you've really just got some "Better Dead Than Red" ax to grind.
I'm sure you know that CCP is an acronym for 'Chinese Communist Party'. I want it to be possible to use the acronym and term interchangeably, but I will consider tha
"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:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:0)
Re:'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
The onus is on you to provide evidence that your claim is plausible, much less probable, even less factual.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, he does. He claimed to have evidence "it didn't come from a lab."
Actually, he doesn't.
This is a pretty simple concept.
If you claim: "Every cat alive today comes from space."
And I claim: "There is ample evidence that they in fact do not."
I do not need to scour all of space looking for a lack of evidence of cats.
I merely need to find evidence of a cat being born on Earth.
In that vein, the evidence he provided shows with high levels of certainty that the virus originated naturally.
That precludes it originating in a lab, and therefor he does not need to prove that it
Re: (Score:2)
You're logic impaired, and don't understand English.
And yet you're the one trying to argue in support of a conspiracy theory.
The claim was it didn't come from a lab, not that it didn't originate in a lab.
There's no evidence for or against whether or not it passed through a lab.
The only evidence, period, is that it didn't need to.
So again I ask, why are we even considering it?
The answer to that is obvious to everyone around you. Because you're sucked into a conspiracy theory.
The claims of a virus originating in nature, and then escaping from a lab are not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps Xi himself did a little tweaking of it in his office.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it sounds absurd but the point is that "absence of evidence" argument works if all places where evidence could have found have been looked into.
Works in what way? It's a pointless argument.
You will never be sure that it didn't come out of a lab.
Yes, for precisely the same reason that I cannot prove that God does not exist.
All I can say is that, "all available evidence supports a theory that doesn't require a God, and in fact is consistent with the lack of existence of one."
Replace God with lab.
This is an argument from gaps of evidence, and it's fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is arguing whether it's logically tenable. They're arguing that there's no reason to come to the conclusion based merely upon the evidence.
It's as logically tenable as the theory that the Judaic God created the Earth.
With the second one, "prove" is synonymous with "be sure"
So as such, feel free to re-read what I wrote as:
"Yes, for precisely the same reason that I cannot be sure that God does not exist."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Knowing what we know about the evolution of SARS-CoV variants from reservoir to outbreak, in order for it to have originated in a lab, it would have already had to have been virulent somewhere else, because these things require lots of interactions between species, including humans.
The lab in question was literally known to be studying transmission of coronaviruses [politico.com], and also known to have several risky conditions. That is frankly ample reason to believe that the source of the outbreak was the lab. It does not prove it, but it is a strong indicator, especially given that the first case had no connection to the wet market [businessinsider.com]. You are willfully ignoring the known facts in order to justify your prejudices against people you think are prejudiced. You, sir, are a hypocrite, in addition to bei
BULLSEYE (Score:1)
When I get modded Troll on an anti-China comment I know I've hit paydirt. It's as reliable as the sunrise.
For those noobs who don't know, Troll means you're saying things just to piss people off, which is not what's going on here.
I provided citations, and the correct response to same is to provide counter-citations, not to mod down what you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
I think however that you perhaps have earned yourself a reputation of being a troll, resulting in your posts not being taken at face value.
Back to our discussion of probabilities.
What's more probable? That people simply disagree with you, or that all the points in the argument that you ignore to keep beating the same 2 circumstantial points you have has taught people to not bother reading what you write?
I submit that the latter is more probable.
After
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's another possibility.
That you are a kook.
I for one bear no love for the CCP, and I sincerely doubt anyone on this site really does.
So let's turn your claim around,
I see a lot of Trumptard propagandists working overtime to control the narrative. I'm seeing the term 'CCP shill' being thrown around, that must be their current playbook (do you want to be labelled a commie agent? No? Then you'd better comply with the narrative).
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't vote for Donald Trump.
After he was elected I was pleased that we finally had a pr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The lab in question was literally known to be studying transmission of coronaviruses
So?
This doesn't change the fact that it's far more plausible that the lab had nothing to do with it.
Again, your refusal to accept that indicates to me that you have a prejudicial conclusion already.
The people that matter aren't claiming it couldn't have come from a lab. They claiming that it looks very much like something that came out of some natural high-density population, most likely with a zoonotic intermediate vector.
especially given that the first case had no connection to the wet market [businessinsider.com].
Wait, now you're taking the Chinese' word toward the origin?
It's almost like you'
Re: (Score:2)
"This doesn't change the fact that it's far more plausible that the lab had nothing to do with it."
So, The Wuhan Institute of Virology is in Wuhan, in Hubei province.
In 2012 Researchers from the Wuhan lab investigated the deaths of some miners cleaning bat dung from a mine in Mojiang, Yunnan province. The symptoms of these miners were very similar to Covid. The samples they collected were of RaTG13 which is the closest relative of Sars-CoV-2 found in the wild, 96% similar. The Wuhan lab also had tissue samp
Re: (Score:2)
In 2012 Researchers from the Wuhan lab investigated the deaths of some miners cleaning bat dung from a mine in Mojiang, Yunnan province. The symptoms of these miners were very similar to Covid. The samples they collected were of RaTG13 which is the closest relative of Sars-CoV-2 found in the wild, 96% similar. The Wuhan lab also had tissue samples from the dead miners sent to them as well.
96% similar is not similar in the way you're thinking at all.
It infers a strong relationship, but that's a considerably larger difference than between us and Gorillas.
All bat-sourced coronaviruses likely have a common ancestor- so this isn't weird.
What 96% says, is "you're on the right path, but you haven't found it yet"
What are the odds that Covid begins to spread in Wuhan, and not in Mojiang, where these miners died, and it wasn't because of research going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
As I mentioned, SARS-CoV-1, which was also traced back to Yunnan, had it's initial outbreak in Guangdong. What Chinese laboratory conducting top secret coronavirus research was responsibl
Re: (Score:2)
The samples they collected were of RaTG13 which is the closest relative of Sars-CoV-2 found in the wild, 96% similar.
Perhaps you want to reread what you wrote. I took the liberty to emphasize one part.
I mean what are the odds?
Zero.
Huh, that's a little weird?
The only thing weird is your lack of IQ.
I suggest to google a bit and figure how similar in terms of percentage the genome of an ape is with a human. Good luck, I guess your IQ is sufficient to figure that.
Re: 'No Evidence' says Xi (Score:2)
Very interesting article; I hadn't heard that the wet market had been ruled out as the origin. The article also states that there is no evidence it was released from a lab.
Re: (Score:1)
There has definitely been no hard evidence presented that it was released from a lab.
There is equally no hard evidence it was not released from a lab. But proving a negative is not a thing you can reasonably do anyway, unless you prove some other positive.
It is plausible that the transmission occurred in the wild.
It's also plausible that the transmission occurred in a lab.
I only am tired of the idea that there's no evidence that it could have come from the lab. The evidence is all circumstantial, so it does
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully someone will figure out conclusively where it really did come from and it can be put to rest.
Re: (Score:2)
There are strong indications at the moment that the virus actually originated in Europe and was brought by tourists into the Wuhan region.
At the oldest confirmed blood samples - which got reexamined beginning of this year - are from early October 2019.
However that does not really fit to the "chinese bat theory", it would kind of imply that tourist got infected, brought it to Europe infected others which brought it back to Wuhan.
BTW: who had thought that that region is a tourist attraction for Italians, Span
Re: (Score:2)
There are strong indications at the moment that the virus actually originated in Europe and was brought by tourists into the Wuhan region.
I went looking for sources to back this up.
"There's no doubt that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, the highly contagious disease that's so far infected more than 4.2 million people globally and killed nearly 290,000, originated in China."
https://www.usnews.com/news/be... [usnews.com]
"Previously, researchers in Europe have reported1,2,3 finding antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in samples taken at blood banks from November 2019 onwards.
Ben Embarek says this doesn’t necessarily suggest the virus originated in
Re: (Score:2)
That is old news :D
The first link is from MAY 2020!!!
I talked about recent discoveries, in OLD blood probes from 2019.
Na, I wont search the links now.
Point is we have sewage probes, some countries seem to make a daily collection and keep them for future analysis, and blood probes from old patients from 2019, which had strange side symptoms, which we now know can happen with COVID. So some smart doctors searched the archives and analyzed blood from that time from patients that had such strange symptoms but c
Except as others have pointed out (Score:2)
Occam's razor. Which argument has the most per-suppositions and premises (not which one's the simplest, BTW).
#1, The lab narrative says that a high security lab (it's among the highest) was handling a virus that has a very hard time transmitting through touch and almost always transmits through breathing.
#2, The hypothesis held by scientific consensus, is that the virus can be traced back to deforestation and wet markets massivel
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that the fact that prevailing opinion is that the virus came from nature (not bio-engineered) does not rule out release from the WIV due to incompetence.
And I'm saying *nothing* can possibly rule that out.
So, knowing that we cannot possibly rule out a lab origin, and knowing that there exists *evidence* of natural origin, the natural origin is the legitimate hypothesis, and the lab hypothesis is string theory.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Quit lying.
Even if they hadn't done something that is again- entirely not weird, and CDC has the authority to force our labs to do the same exact thing- you would just argue that they hid the *real* evidence.
You're a conspiracy theorist. You fucking know it. We know it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one way a lab release could be ruled out
is the lie.
You believe what you believe in spite of what the evidence suggests. Acting like you could be convinced, "if only [some moving, and unreachable target]..." is just you trying to smear a veneer of intellectual honesty onto your otherwise intellectually dishonest posts.
I feel bad for the Chinese people
Who doesn't?
their oppressive communist rulers created this suspicion by hiding.
I found the use of the word communist as interesting, because it was in no way required for that sentence.
This is one of many reasons I have for believing that you've really just got some "Better Dea
Re: (Score:1)
Well, one way a lab release could be ruled out
is the lie.
You believe what you believe in spite of what the evidence suggests. Acting like you could be convinced, "if only [some moving, and unreachable target]..." is just you trying to smear a veneer of intellectual honesty onto your otherwise intellectually dishonest posts.
OK, I see. You are saying that I am lying when I say I we could rule out lab origin by examining lab's operations and contents. You are saying that I'm being dishonest about acceptance of a natural-origin theory after an unimpeded, unfettered investigation.
I feel bad for the Chinese people
Who doesn't?
Apparently citizens of China (or, they don't feel bad enough to get rid of the CCP)
their oppressive communist rulers created this suspicion by hiding.
I found the use of the word communist as interesting, because it was in no way required for that sentence. This is one of many reasons I have for believing that you've really just got some "Better Dead Than Red" ax to grind.
I'm sure you know that CCP is an acronym for 'Chinese Communist Party'. I want it to be possible to use the acronym and term interchangeably, but I will consider tha