I don’t know much that last bit about her negative test really matters, but it is significant that no one seems to know a thing about these three workers that allegedly fell ill with a COVID-like illness at the time she would have been working there.
All reports, from people who should know, are that this was just a regular lab like anywhere else in the world and not at all some secretive lab controlled by a totalitarian government.
It should also be noted that much, if not most, of the research done there would have been with international collaborators, so if there was any secret work being done on viruses close to SARS-CoV-2 the cover up would have to go beyond China. I can’t find the source now, but Peter Daszak has said that most of the work done there was in collaboration with his organization, EcoHealth, so he would know if any work was being done that could have resulted in the pandemic arising from a lab leak. Of course, to true believers he is part of the conspiracy, so that probably won’t make much difference to them.
The further actions beyond interviewing our neighbours and tenant. I fully understood the need to do at least a preliminary investigation.
Well then you misunderstand me. Jordan has said it well here,
If it is ever known how the pandemic started no one will be able to point to me and say I was wrong because for me both options are wide open. I have no particular skin in the game. On the other hand, those who are claiming that the people believing merely that the possibility exists that the virus leaked from a lab are ‘nut bars’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’ will need to walk this back. Why don’t we all advocate for full disclosure of the evidence? There are myriad examples of how proving a particular truth is hindered or made impossible when evidence is unavailable or inadmissable. Does anyone doubt the CCP’s willingness to suppress evidence?
people claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was a human construct
and
people claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was a human construct and was deliberately released
and
people claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was a human construct and leaked out of a lab.
Isn’t there a non-human construct version? Like the Gain of Function (GoF) + accident?
Like:
people claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was studied by WIV for GoF and leaked out of WIV by accident
Or this example I give above is not from “people” but from some reporters and scientists?
Then you had definitely better put me on your list of nut bars. And this is speaking as someone who thinks (and has thought all along) that a zoonotic origin is substantially more likely than a lab leak.
Specifically, how about letting independent investigators read the log books of the researchers? That seems like the absolute bare minimum when investigating a possible catastrophic leak. What exactly did the first investigation do, other than ask those who may have been responsible for a lab leak whether they did it or not? People whose every word is controlled by their government? Why do you give any evidentiary weight at all to those statements?
This is way off topic I guess, so we better not belabor it.
But I say your conclusion is based in part on a) knowing yourself and the situation, and b) having the benefit of hindsight. Please agree with me (can we agree on anything?) that if the same had happened to someone different and as a result of the police not investigating further, abuse was not uncovered and therefore continued, you would be less willing to say that further investigation should have been carried out.
So no one has better and fuller evidence to the experience you describe than you yourself.
I don’t see how that parallels in any remote way the evidence that is at the sole discretion of the CCP to reveal. How, in all sincerity is that not clear? Don’t you have the least qualms about trusting the testimony of the accused?
Is it? If investigators have personally visited the lab, interviewed the workers, and are satisfied that everything is above board, is then reading the log books still automatic, because that is part of the “bare minimum”? It doesn’t seem to be.
Yes. I’m trying to imagine an investigation into a hospital infection outbreak that consisted of nothing more than asking the personnel in question whether they violated any protocols. I find the idea that this represents a thorough investigation dumbfounding.
Really? I thought they were talking about continued investigations. In any case, the WHO’s top priority is now, as alway, to keep powerful member states happy while doing as much good for public health as is consistent with priority #1.
As someone that considers the natural zoonotic explanation more credible than the lab leak, I would not mind a thorough investigation at all. The problem is that such an investigation would be problematic in a couple of different ways. First, it has been over 18 months since the beginning of the outbreak, which leaves traceable evidence much harder to find. Second, this would require consent of the Chinese government, which seems quite unlikely.
For these reasons, I believe it makes most sense to focus on the more likely scenario in the first place and give researchers what they need to try to find a “mutational trail”.
No, that’s a subset of the human construct version. There isn’t good evidence to support it either. As a geneticist and virologist, I find all of the blather about GoF amusing, because it’s clear that 99.9% of those blathering don’t know what they are talking about.
No, that’s a subset of the human construct version. There isn’t good evidence to support it either. As a geneticist and virologist, I find all of the blather about GoF amusing, because it’s clear that 99.9% of those blathering don’t know what they are talking about.
Right, because GoF is done quite often, it’s normal procedure, right? That’s what Prof. Vincent Racaniello was saying a few weeks ago–that GoF has nothing to do with lab-leak in and of itself.
Because they are perfectly analogous. One side works from evidence, the other ignores evidence and pretends that hearsay is evidence. No mystery there.
That’s easy. Many IDers believe that Satan and demons are the powers that be who are in charge of this world, and hence are very susceptible to the belief that there is a worldwide conspiracy to promote evilution and censor design.
Similarly, people who would believe the above would be more likely to believe there was a lab leak with people in the CCP hiding said leak.
Interesting but sloppy use of language if you’ll forgive me.
Classic equivocation.
As the bishop, J.C. Ryle pointed out, "“the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy” For anyone offended by the inclusion of the word ‘religious’ - drop it and this quote should be seen as relevant.
One definition of evolution has been stated in the past,
The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised , impersonal , unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments
And apparently, after first refusing to do so, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) has dropped the words “unsupervised” and “impersonal” from its official description of evolution.
I don’t really want to get in a huge thing about the definition but to make sense of your quoted comment one has to know what you mean. Please forgive me for saying you maybe don’t know fully yourself what you meant or if you do you have left it very equivocal.
May I ask you if think there is anyone here that doesn’t believe in evolution in the altered sense? Even the much-maligned whipping boy Michael Behe believes in evolution in the altered sense. And I imagine the founder of Peaceful Science might balk at affirming the first sense.
I do think you are on to something on the demarcation regarding the lab leak. I just don’t think your description gets anywhere near clarity. I don’t know a lot about the people here, so am pretty unabe to say how people fall on the ID question. Rather than ID vs evolution, do you think it would be better ID vs non-ID?
You’d need to be clear on how you are seeing people disagreeing on this topic. Just as I doubt that anyone here would say they don’t believe in some form of evolution, so I don’t think anyone here is saying that the case should be closed and the conclusion should be that the pandemic has been the result to a lab leak. Rather the illiberal view is on the other side, saying the conclusion should be drawn that the virus is the result of, how is it said, - zoonosis?
How is it that liberals have become so fundamentalist I wonder. TDS?
I won’t, is to be read in the 3rd person or however one should say that.
I am not saying that me (Sam) won’t allow you to see the evidence. I saying as it has been apparently reported that the Chinese in charge of data, document or whatever are not allowing it to be seen by whoever might want to look at it.
Sam
BrianLopez
I smell a can of worms 