Where? I hope you aren’t referring to anything I’ve said.
I am going to guess this is what he meant.
This is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Please refrain.
Yes, ID vs evolution | ID vs non-ID would be a can of worms. This does not pertain here and it will clog the thread. ID vs evolutionary science (I learned the hard way) has already been extensively discussed in past threads. But I’ll let the scientists point that out…backing out.
Agreed - there are plenty of other threads to argue ID and evolution. Let’s stick to SARS-CoV-2 here.
I appreciate that you moderators have a tough job, but
means you can’t address this,
That is unfortunate don’t you think?
Let’s get back on track, Sam.
Yes, it should have.
My point is why don’t you stick with claims that you won’t have to walk back.
As mentioned by
Why don’t you take the tolerant or liberal attitude that reflects the attitude to anyone curious about the cause, 'look where you like for the cause and I will do all I can to support you, even adding my two cents that all data etc, should be available to investigators."
By the way, do you see and good reason that any data should be ‘hidden’?
Personally, yes and I think it’s odd. I can think of some reasons why it could be but they’d be conjecture and probably be difficult to explore within healthy conversation. I’ll defer to @cwhenderson and say no more about this particular topic at this point.
If someone was insisting that the police launch a full investigation on me and my wife to determine whether we were abusing our children, even though there was no evidence to support this, I would not consider that to be “tolerant and liberal.” Quite the opposite, in fact.
There is no evidence that any data was hidden, so that is a pointless question.
1 Like
Why not answer the question no then.
I think your response here involves begging the question or assuming the answer.
In the case of your daughter that fell out of the window, it is easy for you to say that the police did an adequate investigation into whether her fall may have been the result of negligence or abuse. You yourself know that you were neither negligent nor abusive. You know the answer to those queries.
If there was another similar case where the police investigated to a similar extent and then later the parents did turn up as abusive, and a bit more investigation would have uncovered that, then you’d hopefully conclude that further investigation should have been done.
We don’t know the answer to the cause of the pandemic so it appears that you beg the question or assume the answer that no lab leak was involved.
Regarding my ask for you to be tolerant or liberal, it was specifically in relation to the lab leak. I for example have no skin in the game. I don’t care what the answer is. I’d just like everyone to have the freedom to look at all the evidence and I advocate for that.
If we could go back for a moment to the SNC-Lavalin / Trudeau thing. If Trudeau really wanted everyone to believe in his innocence and not just a few of the partisans, I think that he’d say to his opposition, have at her. Here are all of the records. All of us are available at any time to give sworn testimony. We won’t use our majority to vote down any motion to see documents. Nothing like this happened in the SNC-Lavalin / Trudeau affair. And I don’t think anything like that has happened in the investigation into whether the pandemic may have resulted from a lab leak.
I guess I haven’t gone deep into it, but my impression is that is far from the truth.
Do you just as readily say that Trudeau was as open and transparent regarding SNC-Lavalin/JWR as he could possibly be? If so, I don’t see that we have much likelihood on agreeing on anything.
1 Like
Sam, I know I asked you to leave Trump out of this conversation, but it looks like I was too specific. Can we leave ALL politics that is not directly related to SARS-CoV-2 out of the conversation?
2 Likes
Because that would be an incorrect answer.
I’m starting to have a hard time taking you seriously.
No.
And the workers at the WIV have been open and transparent according to the WHO investigators, who I have no reason to doubt.
So another pointless question from you.
2 Likes
I can see no evidence that you ever did take me seriously. It is your prerogative.
Case in point,
I ask you, “By the way, do you see and good reason that any data should be ‘hidden’?”
I’d expect everyone here, on all sides of this question, to pretty much give an unqualified ‘no’.
You, however, opt to respond as if I’d asked you a complex question, such as, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ That would be legit if the question had gone something like this, ‘Do you think the folks in charge at Wuhan should stop hiding evidence?’ In which case you’d be right to ask for a division of the question. My question to you is nothing of the kind.
It does appear to suit your purpose to obfuscate. Answering my question with a clear no would have not indicated that any evidence existed of data actually have being hidden. Rather it would give me confidence that if such ever did turn up, I would be able to count on your disapproval. So, in my opinion, you are 100% incorrect to conclude as you have,
An additional point. I don’t understand most of the science discussed on most of these threads, but when I am treated with such obfuscation on an issue that would basically cost you nothing, I am pretty confident that the same will be done on issues where the cost will be higher and I am less able to see my way through the details.
I need to say as well that the lack of anyone else taking you to task on this makes it seem that nearly everything discussed here is a partisan affair, party lines have been drawn and that thin line won’t be crossed.
1 Like
Really?
Ask some of the working scientists here if they allow absolutely anyone who asks to look at the data for a research project they plan on publishing. Or are if they are doing research for a private corporation. I think you will find there are any number of qualifications that would reasonably be raised.
To return to the analogy involving me and my daughter: Should I give unqualified access to anyone wanting to ask questions about intimate details of my relationship with my wife an children just because someone somewhere thinks they need to absolutely sure I am not an abuser, even though they have no evidence that I am one?
I don’t think that any of us need to guess.
If you lack the patience to get into the evidence, there’s no reason for you to have such a vivid impression.
It probably should be written in the 3rd person to get people to read it that way, maybe.
We have the sequence evidence, Sam.
snarky aren’t you. Peaceful science much?
How does, “We have the sequence evidence, Sam.” reflect on whether evidence is being hidden.
I don’t care how the question ends up being answered. My entire point is let whoever needs to see the evidence.
I will concede that that is valid.
I ask you to concede that if one has something to hide they can use this as an excuse.
I’ve got in mind a great analogy, but I’m being policed and not allowed to use it.
I’ve made the claim that this analogy of yours depends on knowing the answer (your innocence) ahead of time. How do you ignore this? Where is anyone else to call you on it? Mercer, you around? Maybe to partisan?
1 Like
Snark is pretty minor relative to accusing others of massive negligent homicide without going deep into the evidence, no?
Because the sequence evidence isn’t being hidden. We also use it to reliably infer ancestral sequences.
Who did that?