Origin of Covid-19

[Anastasis 23498]

53 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I don’t have an opinion on lab leak versus natural origin

Lol. Ok. 

[Dahobbs 17803]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Zeihan is pretty vanilla and doesn’t get into politics himself. If he’s wrong he typically admits it.

This website looks to slant completely pro democrat anti republican. They quote Harvard guy who after getting pressured by liberals and China (since Trump was using his report as a talking point) recants. That’s not super convincing.

I don’t like Trump, never voted for him, but if you’re using this “source” you’re not going to convince anyone who actually reviews how slanted the publication. It like my in laws sending me Fox News articles as “proof”.

I'm not proving anything. I'm demonstrating the absence of evidence. The only information I have found to back up this claim is from "Harvard guy." He didn't recant because of "pressure," whatever the hell that means. He recanted because he realized the evidence he was relying on was flawed and actually disproved his contention. Find any evidence, one iota, that international flights from Wuhan continued after China's internal shutdown. It should be easy enough to find. There are flight trackers galore. If you're too fucking lazy to even look for proof of a claim retracted by the only person that even attempted to prove it, maybe you're just like your fox news in laws. 

[Jatrain 288]

So help me out here…the Chinese CDC uploads (and then deletes) some genetic data to a public database.  Some researchers download it before it was deleted, analyze it and ……. don’t publish their findings in an actual scientific journal,  where the data is made public and their analysis can be peer reviewed, but instead keep the data secret and go first to the media (The Atlantic) and then to the WHO with their findings.  

Can we (and especially the “Follow the Science” crowd) not see the inherent inconsistency (hypocrisy?) present with these researchers forgoing the standard, accepted method of science inquiry, publishing research in peer reviewed journals?  Even if their data and analysis is correct, they invite skepticism as to their motives, especially, intentional or not, releasing this (in this manner) on the heels of the Department of Energy’s acceptance, to contrary of what the establishment has said, of a lab leak as least a possibility.  Now, all of a sudden, blockbuster new data is found that points to the preferred narrative and articles appear in a bunch of the lay media (vs scientific publications) outlets like the Atlantic, NYTs, etc and that data is only given to an organization, the WHO, that has demonstrated a vested interest and desire for the animal transmission model to be accepted.  
 

It’s disappointing to see researchers and leaders who should know better do things like this.  Unfortunately, it’s happened throughout the pandemic and when found out it feeds conspiracy theories and erodes public trust.  

 

[Dahobbs 17803]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Zeihan is pretty vanilla and doesn’t get into politics himself. If he’s wrong he typically admits it.

This website looks to slant completely pro democrat anti republican. They quote Harvard guy who after getting pressured by liberals and China (since Trump was using his report as a talking point) recants. That’s not super convincing.

I don’t like Trump, never voted for him, but if you’re using this “source” you’re not going to convince anyone who actually reviews how slanted the publication. It like my in laws sending me Fox News articles as “proof”.

I'll also point out that your description of that site is incorrect. You'll find articles fact checking Biden and other Democrats as well. It just happens one political party might have a greater aversion to the truth than the other. But neither set of politicians is completely honest. You shouldn't take their word on anything without sources. And you should take Zeihan's either

[Dahobbs 17803]

8 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

So help me out here…the Chinese CDC uploads (and then deletes) some genetic data to a public database.  Some researchers download it before it was deleted, analyze it and ……. don’t publish their findings in an actual scientific journal,  where the data is made public and their analysis can be peer reviewed, but instead keep the data secret and go first to the media (The Atlantic) and then to the WHO with their findings.  

Can we (and especially the “Follow the Science” crowd) not see the inherent inconsistency (hypocrisy?) present with these researchers forgoing the standard, accepted method of science inquiry, publishing research in peer reviewed journals?  Even if their data and analysis is correct, they invite skepticism as to their motives, especially, intentional or not, releasing this (in this manner) on the heels of the Department of Energy’s acceptance, to contrary of what the establishment has said, of a lab leak as least a possibility.  Now, all of a sudden, blockbuster new data is found that points to the preferred narrative and articles appear in a bunch of the lay media (vs scientific publications) outlets like the Atlantic, NYTs, etc and that data is only given to an organization, the WHO, that has demonstrated a vested interest and desire for the animal transmission model to be accepted.  
 

It’s disappointing to see researchers and leaders who should know better do things like this.  Unfortunately, it’s happened throughout the pandemic and when found out it feeds conspiracy theories and erodes public trust.  

 

Your description of events is inaccurately framed. This isn't "blockbuster data." It it small snippets of data that may suggest an area of potential research. It doesn't sound like there is much to analyze or publish in a peer review journal. No conclusions can be made from these small snippets other than there is more information out there that China has and hasn't released. That should be the primary takeaway. 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17803]

7 hours ago, Jatrain said:

So help me out here…the Chinese CDC uploads (and then deletes) some genetic data to a public database.  Some researchers download it before it was deleted, analyze it and ……. don’t publish their findings in an actual scientific journal,  where the data is made public and their analysis can be peer reviewed, but instead keep the data secret and go first to the media (The Atlantic) and then to the WHO with their findings.  

 

This is a very strange takeaway. This data was literally discovered this week. No one, other than the Chinese Government, tried to hide it. There hasn't been time to do any robust analysis or get anything published in a peer review journal. The news here isn't the conclusion about what this data means, but rather that the dat exists at all and has been hidden by the Chinese Government. 

Quote

on the heels of the Department of Energy’s acceptance, to contrary of what the establishment has said, of a lab leak as least a possibility.

What "establishment" has said that a lab release isn't a possibility? I believe you're confusing more robust conclusions on it being a bioweapon or intentional genetic manipulation to affect humans with it being lab release. The latter has always been a possibility, and one that scientists have said should be explored (including the WHO).   

[BrickHorn 18318]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Lol. Ok. 

You left out the key part of that quote so as to completely change its meaning. But that’s unsurprising, since obfuscation is your consistent goal. 

[Anastasis 23498]

7 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Your description of events is inaccurately framed. This isn't "blockbuster data."

While you are correct that there is really no meat to that analysis, that isn’t how it is being framed by the “researchers” working the lay press. 
 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23498]

2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

You left out the key part of that quote so as to completely change its meaning. But that’s unsurprising, since obfuscation is your consistent goal. 

That’s funny. Tell us all more about how many bsl3/4s there are in China and obfuscation. 

[BrickHorn 18318]

Just now, Anastasis said:

That’s funny. Tell us all more about how many bsl3/4s there are in China and obfuscation. 

That’s not obfuscation. It’s directly relevant to evaluating the strength of a major argument offered by lab leak proponents. You either fail to understand that basic aspect of probability theory or you are obfuscating.

[ABSR 5327]

8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm not proving anything. I'm demonstrating the absence of evidence. The only information I have found to back up this claim is from "Harvard guy." He didn't recant because of "pressure," whatever the hell that means. He recanted because he realized the evidence he was relying on was flawed and actually disproved his contention. Find any evidence, one iota, that international flights from Wuhan continued after China's internal shutdown. It should be easy enough to find. There are flight trackers galore. If you're too fucking lazy to even look for proof of a claim retracted by the only person that even attempted to prove it, maybe you're just like your fox news in laws. 

Based on Dahobbs first response and link/article to my post it seems to indicate that what Zeihan said and what I posted was incorrect.  It does not appear that the actual flight activity supports what Zeihan said and I posted.

If there is other firm data backing up the claim I am happy to have it, but I don’t want my post to be a source of misinformation.

[Deej 77160]

Raccoon dog? More like fever dog, amirite?

 

[Anastasis 23498]

21 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

That’s not obfuscation. It’s directly relevant to evaluating the strength of a major argument offered by lab leak proponents. You either fail to understand that basic aspect of probability theory or you are obfuscating.

You still think that all bsl lab facilities should be treated equally in your probability distraction, when in fact we know that they should not. You are not fooling anyone here brick, but please project about obfuscation more. 

[Murfdogg21 4480]

Brickhorn is defending Wuhan in hopes of getting some Wutang. 

[Dahobbs 17803]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

While you are correct that there is really no meat to that analysis, that isn’t how it is being framed by the “researchers” working the lay press. 
 

I hadn't read the Atlantic article since it was behind a paywall. I agree this is more sensationalized than supported by the new information. I think the Ars Technica article I posted is a more sober analysis. 

[babysdaddy 2730]

[Sawbonz 27776]

How do we know the raccoon dogs were infected first and transmitted to humans rather than vice versa? Do we have independent verification of patient zero or is the info from the Chinese govt the only source?

 

eta I’m assuming there is a way to determine from the genetics but China has not been forthcoming with that 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Sawbonz

[Bevo 13633]

The virus came from a collection of bats that were being researched in Wuhan.

[Sawbonz 27776]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

No one, other than the Chinese Government, tried to hide it

This is the problem. What do you conclude in a criminal trial when a defendant is proven to have hidden or destroyed relevant evidence?

[Jatrain 288]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

This is a very strange takeaway. This data was literally discovered this week. No one, other than the Chinese Government, tried to hide it. There hasn't been time to do any robust analysis or get anything published in a peer review journal. The news here isn't the conclusion about what this data means, but rather that the dat exists at all and has been hidden by the Chinese Government. 

What "establishment" has said that a lab release isn't a possibility? I believe you're confusing more robust conclusions on it being a bioweapon or intentional genetic manipulation to affect humans with it being lab release. The latter has always been a possibility, and one that scientists have said should be explored (including the WHO).   

 

9 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Your description of events is inaccurately framed. This isn't "blockbuster data." It it small snippets of data that may suggest an area of potential research. It doesn't sound like there is much to analyze or publish in a peer review journal. No conclusions can be made from these small snippets other than there is more information out there that China has and hasn't released. That should be the primary takeaway. 

 

I may have been hyperbolic with the “blockbuster” data comment, beyond that you make my point for me.  This small sample of data, that needs to be analyzed and those results published for peer review, has been jumped on by media outlets as “strong evidence” for an animal origin (As pointed out by Anastasis).  If you just google “raccoon dog” you’ll find tons of stories in reputable outlets, the majority of which take a tone much more similar to that of the Atlantic article rather than the Ars article you posted.  
 

I place that at the feet of the researchers. As I said the first place they went with this data was The Atlantic and I have a hard time believing that the author of that the story would have made such a strong statement unless the researchers intimated to her that the data was something more than “small snippets of data that may suggest an area of potential research.”

[Dahobbs 17803]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

This is the problem. What do you conclude in a criminal trial when a defendant is proven to have hidden or destroyed relevant evidence?

I assume they have a reason. It seems China wants to avoid releasing any evidence that provides affirmation the pandemic first began in China, regardless of lab release or natural spillover in the wet markets. 

[Dahobbs 17803]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

How do we know the raccoon dogs were infected first and transmitted to humans rather than vice versa? Do we have independent verification of patient zero or is the info from the Chinese govt the only source?

 

eta I’m assuming there is a way to determine from the genetics but China has not been forthcoming with that 

I don't think we even know from this data that the raccoon dogs were infected. 

[Dahobbs 17803]

11 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

 

I may have been hyperbolic with the “blockbuster” data comment, beyond that you make my point for me.  This small sample of data, that needs to be analyzed and those results published for peer review, has been jumped on by media outlets as “strong evidence” for an animal origin (As pointed out by Anastasis).  If you just google “raccoon dog” you’ll find tons of stories in reputable outlets, the majority of which take a tone much more similar to that of the Atlantic article rather than the Ars article you posted.  
 

I place that at the feet of the researchers. As I said the first place they went with this data was The Atlantic and I have a hard time believing that the author of that the story would have made such a strong statement unless the researchers intimated to her that the data was something more than “small snippets of data that may suggest an area of potential research.”

You keep saying the first place the researchers went was the media. I don't know what you're basing that on. There hasn't been time to do anything besides identify that new information is available for analysis. It is a big deal that China withheld data, apparently accidentally released, that immediately retracted it from being available. That in and of itself is news worthy. Technically, I'm not sure the Atlantic article is wrong. This may be the strongest direct evidence of zoonotic spillover. But, given that we had very little direct evidence of the origin, that isn't saying much. So, it is misleading to put that in a headline without more context. But this is stuff the media gets wrong all the time, even when provided accurate information. Sometimes it is intentional to generate more buzz. Other times it is simple ignorance. 

[BrickHorn 18318]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You still think that all bsl lab facilities should be treated equally in your probability distraction, when in fact we know that they should not. You are not fooling anyone here brick, but please project about obfuscation more. 

No, I’m not assuming that at all. I’m saying the onus is on those who think the Wuhan lab was unique in a relevant way to show that. And you and others have not done so.

It’s insufficient to argue merely that the Wuhan lab was doing research on coronaviruses or even SARS type viruses that are closely related to Covid. For that to be meaningful evidence, you must also show that the same does not apply to other bio labs in China. Otherwise, you’re just amazed that you pulled a red ball out of a bag that, as far as we know, could be full of red balls. 

Edited March 18, 2023 by BrickHorn

[Jatrain 288]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

This is a very strange takeaway. This data was literally discovered this week. No one, other than the Chinese Government, tried to hide it. There hasn't been time to do any robust analysis or get anything published in a peer review journal. The news here isn't the conclusion about what this data means, but rather that the dat exists at all and has been hidden by the Chinese Government. 

What "establishment" has said that a lab release isn't a possibility? I believe you're confusing more robust conclusions on it being a bioweapon or intentional genetic manipulation to affect humans with it being lab release. The latter has always been a possibility, and one that scientists have said should be explored (including the WHO).   

The “establishment” early on jumped on the animal origin hypothesis to the point that people suggesting a lab leak were grouped in with science deniers and conspiracy theorists.  
 

The March 2020 paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” made a very firm statement that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible”. Francis Collins promoted its findings on the NIH website and in interviews.  Dr. Fauci did the same.  Of course later on we find out   directly from their emails that both Collins and Fauci were in contact with the authors and played a significant role in shaping the final paper towards that conclusion.  

One month before that paper was published, the lead author stated that while they had been trying to disprove the lab leak theory, they didn’t have enough evidence to provide high confidence in accepting or dismissing either the lab leak or animal origin models and that they until they do they should not publish.  Yet less than a month later they do publish, making the conclusion I stated above.  The data didn’t change over that month only the strength of the conclusion (as seen when comparing earlier summaries and drafts).

Does that equal conspiracy against lab leak? Of course not, but I do think the emails around this paper demonstrate a bias against lab leak at the highest level  and a desire to promote a finding in line with their thinking at the time (I will note that both Collins and Fauci have recently softened their stance against lab leak, as good scientists should do when presented with conflicting data). 
 

 

[Bevo 13633]

3 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

No, I’m not assuming that at all. I’m saying the onus is on those who think the Wuhan lab was unique in a relevant way to show that. And you and others have not done so.

It’s insufficient to argue merely that the Wuhan lab was doing research on coronaviruses or even SARS type viruses that are closely related to Covid. For that to be meaningful evidence, you must also show that the same does not apply to other bio labs in China. Otherwise, you’re just amazed that you pulled a red ball out of a bag that, as far as we know, could be full of red balls. 

It was a lab leak.

[bschoolprof 6280]

3 hours ago, Jatrain said:

The “establishment” early on jumped on the animal origin hypothesis to the point that people suggesting a lab leak were grouped in with science deniers and conspiracy theorists.  
 

The March 2020 paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” made a very firm statement that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible”. Francis Collins promoted its findings on the NIH website and in interviews.  Dr. Fauci did the same.  Of course later on we find out   directly from their emails that both Collins and Fauci were in contact with the authors and played a significant role in shaping the final paper towards that conclusion.  

One month before that paper was published, the lead author stated that while they had been trying to disprove the lab leak theory, they didn’t have enough evidence to provide high confidence in accepting or dismissing either the lab leak or animal origin models and that they until they do they should not publish.  Yet less than a month later they do publish, making the conclusion I stated above.  The data didn’t change over that month only the strength of the conclusion (as seen when comparing earlier summaries and drafts).

Does that equal conspiracy against lab leak? Of course not, but I do think the emails around this paper demonstrate a bias against lab leak at the highest level  and a desire to promote a finding in line with their thinking at the time (I will note that both Collins and Fauci have recently softened their stance against lab leak, as good scientists should do when presented with conflicting data). 
 

 

The researchers behind this latest study/analysis are the same ones as Proximal Origin. In their own words, they had been trying for weeks in Feb 2020 to disprove the lab theory.  

[BrickHorn 18318]

14 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

The researchers behind this latest study/analysis are the same ones as Proximal Origin. In their own words, they had been trying for weeks in Feb 2020 to disprove the lab theory.  

They discuss this in the podcast I linked. you should give it a listen. I need to read up on the email correspondence and listen to their explanation again, but the long and short of their position is that their emails have been incompletely quoted in a very misleading way. 

[statsman 5497]

1. I don’t get the anger over the article. More info and more thorough analyses are good, right? I certainly have plenty of biases in my worldview (you could call me a “right wing reactionary” and I would take it as a compliment), but this will work out however it works out and I’m too old to start fighting facts. 
 
2. Tell me more about these “raccoon dogs”. I have long contended that a carnivorous raccoon that hunted in packs would be the world’s second most deadly predator (after mankind). 

[Samson's Wig 3195]

It's sad how much political bias plays a role in almost everyone's stance on this issue.  We've seemingly become incapable of reasoned thought in this country, but rather apply logical statements to predetermined conclusions.  I'm freely and knowingly casting stones from my glass house here, as I'm no better than anyone else on this front.

I'm mostly just amazed that I somehow knew what a pangolin was before the pandemic, but I am only now hearing about the existence of raccoon dogs.  Whether it was one of these creatures or a lab leak we'll likely never know, so there is only one way to logically handle this.  All lab employees everywhere, along with all raccoon dogs and all pangolins, need to be rounded up into internment camps and put down. It's the only way to prevent another outbreak.

[Anastasis 23498]

A little more background on the latest media blitz. WHO SAGO called everyone in to the principal's office. 

https://www.who.int/news/item/18-03-2023-sago-statement-on-newly-released-sars-cov-2-metagenomics-data-from-china-cdc-on-gisaid

The uploads were conducted as part of peer review process related to a submission working its way through the process at Nature.

On 12 March 2023, WHO was made aware of new SARS-CoV-2 sequences and metagenomics data associated with samples collected in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, Wuhan, China, from January 2020, that became available on GISAID for a short period of time. The data had subsequently been downloaded by a number of researchers from several countries. Access was restricted shortly after, apparently to allow further data updates by China CDC.  WHO then immediately reached out to China CDC and to the Chair and Vice-Chair of SAGO. Upon discussions between WHO and Chinese colleagues, it was explained that the genomic data are the basis for an expected update to the existing Liu et al. 2022 preprint (1), which is in the process of being re-submitted for publication to Nature by China CDC.

...

According to the Chinese’s authors pre-print (Liu et al 2022), of 1380, samples collected from the environment and animals within the market in early 2020, 73/923 environmental samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2-specific RT-qPCR, from various stalls and sewerage systems in and around the market, but no virus was detected in 457 animal samples tested. The animal samples included animal bodies, frozen animal carcases and animal products, as well as stray animals around the market, and covered 18 species. According to the preprint, raccoon dogs were not amongst the animals tested. However, the presence of high levels of raccoon dog mitochondrial DNA in the metagenomics data from environmental samples identified in the new analysis, suggest that raccoon dog and other animals may have been present before the market was cleaned as part of the public health intervention.

Historical photographic evidence was provided that shows raccoon dogs and other animals were sold at these specific stalls in the past. Although this does not provide conclusive evidence as to the intermediate host or origins of the virus, the data provide further evidence of the presence of susceptible animals at the market that may have been a source of human infections.

Here is the pre-print: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1370392/v1

And the abstract:

Emerging in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) eventually became a pandemic and has posed a tremendous threat to global public health. However, the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, remain to be determined. It has reported that a certain number of the early case clusters had a contact history with Huanan Seafood Market. Therefore, surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 within the market is of vital importance. Herein, we presented the SARS-CoV-2 detection results of 1380 samples collected from the environment and the animals within the market in early 2020. By SARS-CoV-2-specific RT-qPCR, 73 environmental samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and three live viruses were successfully isolated. The viruses from the market shared nucleotide identity of 99.980% to 99.993% with the human isolate HCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-01. In contrast, no virus was detected in the animal swabs covering 18 species of animals in the market. The SARS-COV-2 nucleic acids in the positive environmental samples showed significant correlation of abundance of Homo sapiens with SARS-CoV-2. In summary, this study provided convincing evidence of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the Huanan Seafood Market during the early stage of COVID-19 outbreak.

 

Will be interesting to see the final peer-reviewed version of the paper. Funny how this group appears to have taken advantage of the peer-review process to do a pre-emptive media blitz.  Some real top tier nerd rat fucking.  

Edited March 18, 2023 by Anastasis

[DDD Dad 14369]

21 hours ago, Anastasis said:

What are you upset about now princess? See if the information pans out? What information? That human, sars, and raccoon dog genetic material is present in at least one of the hundreds of environmental swabs taken from a market where a super spreader event occurred and raccoon dogs shit all over the place in their cages stacked on top of each other? Are you really this stupid? Maybe the probability expert on the thread can help you interpret the information?

Misogyny noted. 

[DDD Dad 14369]

7 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

How do we know the raccoon dogs were infected first and transmitted to humans rather than vice versa?

We don’t. 
 

Quote

Do we have independent verification of patient zero or is the info from the Chinese govt the only source?

I don’t think there has been any patient zero info from anyone (even Chinese govt). At least I haven’t seen it. 
 

Quote

eta I’m assuming there is a way to determine from the genetics but China has not been forthcoming with that 

Indeed. 
 

im curious to see what comes of this despite the condescending snark from @ana and knuckle dragging from Q-tards 

[DDD Dad 14369]

58 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Will be interesting to see the final peer-reviewed version of the paper. Funny how this group appears to have taken advantage of the peer-review process to do a pre-emptive media blitz.  Some real top tier nerd rat fucking.  

You’re the only one trying to dunk on people. I made it clear in my first post that this was just one piece of data and had yet to be peer reviewed. My thought was it was interesting and I look forward to seeing what, if anything develops from it. 
 

FWIW I have no opinion on the source of the virus and no vested interest in an outcome (lab versus animal). 

[Mullet Free 39]

19 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Beyond that, I’ll leave the debate about genetic sequences and furin cleavage sites and whatnot to the virology and epidemiology experts. 

Thank you. Please step aside and let us take care of it. 

[Homercles 10206]

So China had this info but was hiding it?  The timing of this seems…convenient…given recent discussions about the lab leak theory.  Makes you wonder what else the they’ve been hiding.  

[Anastasis 23498]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I made it clear in my first post that this was just one piece of data and had yet to be peer reviewed.

Because they took it to Atlantic instead of working through the standard scientific channels. 

[TwiceHorn 31676]

On 2/27/2023 at 6:14 PM, Dahobbs said:

Negged for revisionist bullshit. One group didn't just say it was "plausible." Trying to reframe xenophobic rhetoric as the mere suggestion that a lab release was plausible is lame. 

I'm a bit with Farting here.  I have zero doubt that many of the pro-leak propagandists had xenophobic, or possibly more accurately the aim to deflect blame from domestic leadership to foreigners, the emphasis being deflect and domestic.

I'm a bit less convinced that the other side was trying to be intentionally non-xenophobic, but I'm sure there were a few.  And some that were trying to avoid raising political tensions moreso than being technically accurate or honest.

Regardless, each side took on a bit of propagandist alignment, although I admit that the pro-leak crowd probably moreso and faster.

I'm guilty a bit of resenting the pro-leak crowd some because I identify it with conspiratorial elements of society, although that may not be completely fair.

[BrickHorn 18318]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm guilty a bit of resenting the pro-leak crowd some because I identify it with conspiratorial elements of society, although that may not be completely fair.

Uh… have you read this thread?

[Dahobbs 17803]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm a bit with Farting here.  I have zero doubt that many of the pro-leak propagandists had xenophobic, or possibly more accurately the aim to deflect blame from domestic leadership to foreigners, the emphasis being deflect and domestic.

I'm a bit less convinced that the other side was trying to be intentionally non-xenophobic, but I'm sure there were a few.  And some that were trying to avoid raising political tensions moreso than being technically accurate or honest.

Regardless, each side took on a bit of propagandist alignment, although I admit that the pro-leak crowd probably moreso and faster.

I'm guilty a bit of resenting the pro-leak crowd some because I identify it with conspiratorial elements of society, although that may not be completely fair.

I have no issue with anyone that believes a lab leak is plausible. I do myself. I have an issue with framing it as the poor reasonable lab leak folks getting unreasonably demonized by social justice warriors, which is how the post I quoted framed the issue. That is bullshit. The people pushing lab leak early on were pushing the absolutely worse version of it (Chinese developed bioweapon) and doing so using intentionally racist rhetoric. They deserved scorn. 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Bevo 13633]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm a bit with Farting here.  I have zero doubt that many of the pro-leak propagandists had xenophobic, or possibly more accurately the aim to deflect blame from domestic leadership to foreigners, the emphasis being deflect and domestic.

I'm a bit less convinced that the other side was trying to be intentionally non-xenophobic, but I'm sure there were a few.  And some that were trying to avoid raising political tensions moreso than being technically accurate or honest.

Regardless, each side took on a bit of propagandist alignment, although I admit that the pro-leak crowd probably moreso and faster.

I'm guilty a bit of resenting the pro-leak crowd some because I identify it with conspiratorial elements of society, although that may not be completely fair.

Interesting that most of the people on Surly with backgrounds in science lean towards a lab leak. Maybe if the government didn't obfuscate and hinder investigations and put out false reports, we would see a different result. Personally, I find it insulting that mistrust of the chinese government which did everything that it could to prevent a full investigation is considered xenophobic by many on this board. Your mileage may vary, though.

[Anastasis 23498]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The people pushing lab leak early on were pushing the absolutely worse version of it (Chinese developed bioweapon) and doing so using intentionally racist rhetoric.

Whatever happened to that ephebophile @RayDog? He was pumping both HCQ and engineered virus nonsense here pretty early on.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Anastasis

[Bevo 13633]

31 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Whatever happened to that ephebophile @RayDog? He was pumping both HCQ and engineered virus nonsense here pretty early on.

I thought his big thing was pangolins. And, yes, young Filipino women. But, I'm not sure he had problem with China - although the stuff going down in the South China Sea has a lot of Filipinos upset with the Chinese government.

[Dahobbs 17803]

8 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I thought his big thing was pangolins. And, yes, young Filipino women. But, I'm not sure he had problem with China - although the stuff going down in the South China Sea has a lot of Filipinos upset with the Chinese government.

Didn't he also not believe in gravity? Or rather, he an an elaborate theory that relativity was wrong and that "gravity" was actually some other force?

[Bevo 13633]

24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Didn't he also not believe in gravity? Or rather, he an an elaborate theory that relativity was wrong and that "gravity" was actually some other force?

I don't know remember the gravity stuff but I do remember that he felt the theory of relativity held back advancements in physics.

I do wonder if he survived Covid. He just disappeared from the Covid thread one day. Maybe he was banned or was upset by the shit he was catching for his young Filipino interests.

[bschoolprof 6280]

since we are going off on tangents now, who was the dude that basically implied he had to kill his wife or some such shit because she socialized during the early days of the pandemic?  

[Anastasis 23498]

@Junior Miller?

[Incredulity 11686]

That was some crazy 

[YGIFS 19453]

Holy shit.  Forgot all about that.  In hindsight; that was a pretty dark storyline.  I hope it was just interwebs bullshit.  

[Anastasis 23498]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

 In hindsight; that was a pretty dark storyline.

Not even top 10. We had an aids infested tow truck crusader trying to suck kids dicks after plying them with drugs posting here. And half the idiots here celebrated the guy cause he said reasonably mean things about tow truck drivers. DDD never hall monitored that guy though. Cause he is a good judge of posting quality. 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Anastasis