Covid-19 related debates (argue in this thread only)

[Rodzilla]

Where did you obtain this ‘evidence’?
Who says it’s legit (even though it says nothing)?
So if that’s the basis of submitting ‘evidence’ - then no, you’ll have to prove the legitimacy of the material and even if you can do that - it still means nothing and your chances of a conviction remain slim to none .

this was the freedom of information request from Jimmy Tobias that unredacted the emails of the conference call and discussions, it has already been used by the opposite side to claim that the scientific process was upheld

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1595096888373649414

 

[Doogie]

this was the freedom of information request from Jimmy Tobias that unredacted the emails of the conference call and discussions, it has already been used by the opposite side to claim that the scientific process was upheld

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1595096888373649414

The Jimmy Tobias that writes for the Guardian? U mean msm?

How u finding anal sex Rodzy - it really is the dark side eh?

 

[Rodzilla]

I found it odd that it was so fast, but it's not in unheard of. Especially when you have so many people working on it.

It's not flip flopping though. It's science. This is how it works. Opinions change when new data is revealed.

As Dinkum said. No smoking gun here. You're just seeing shadows and claiming it's the bogeyman.

we are not talking about the original Feb 1st to Feb 4th flip, we are talking about the Feb 4th to Feb 8th flop

he had conclusive evidence and then he somehow didn't, what happened to that evidence in a few days? was it disproven? did it disappear into thin air?

this is impossible to explain away with just name calling and blaming me, you have to show how this scientist can explain something as conclusive and then non conclusive, either it is conclusive or not conclusive, it can't be both, and when something is conclusive it should be able to hold up and not taken back, thats why its called conclusive, aka the end of the debate, the conclusion etc

 

[DinkumDog]

this was the freedom of information request from Jimmy Tobias that unredacted the emails of the conference call and discussions, it has already been used by the opposite side to claim that the scientific process was upheld

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1595096888373649414

The tabloid journo with the same credibility as the Desert Review? Or a co-incidence?

Let’s assume it’s true (you claim, without evidence that the ‘other team’ acknowledges it is true).

I still say: ‘So What?’

What’s in it that says it was Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Dagger? Hint: Nothing.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

so i can put it into evidence?

Feb 8th 2020 10.15pm: Kristian Andersen emails Koopmans and Drosten as part of a group discussion, says what they are considering is far from a conspiracy theory, that he has been working over the last couple has been focused on trying to disprove any lab theory but the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to have a high confidence of any possibility

he also is not in favor of publishing in a scientific journal at this stage, claiming that publishing something open ended would backfire, he thinks its important to gather additional evidence including waiting on the pangolin sequence and further scrutinizing the furin cleavage site/o linked glycans

Of course. No issue submitting that into evidence. I doubt it will hold much weight though as it's no really evidence of anything circumstantial to the case, and certainly not evidence of any kind of fraud or conspiracy.

 

[Rodzilla]

ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE
-January 31st 2020: Eddie Holmes, Bob Garry, Kristian Andersen and Mike Farzan had discussions and all of them find that the covid genome is inconsistent with expectation from evolutionary theory

-January 31st 2020 10.32pm: Kristian Andersen emails fauci to say that parts of the virus look (potentially) engineered and that they have to look at it much closely so their opinions could change, informs him of the discussion with Eddie Holmes, Bob Garry and Mike Farzan earlier in the day.

-February 4th 12.05pm and 54 seconds: Kristian Andersen emails Peter Daszak, he says that the data conclusively shows that any sort of engineering was not done (in an intentional scenario someone would have used a SARS/MERS backbone and optimal ACE2 binding, and in a research incident would have used one of available reverse genetic systems), calls it a crackpot theory to suggest covid was created intentionally

February 8th 2020 10.15pm: Kristian Andersen emails Koopmans and Drosten as part of a group discussion, says what they are considering is far from a conspiracy theory, that he has been working over the last couple of weeks focusing on trying to disprove any lab theory but the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to have a high confidence of any possibility, he also is not in favor of publishing in a scientific journal at this stage, claiming that publishing something open ended would backfire, he thinks its important to gather additional evidence including waiting on the pangolin sequence and further scrutinizing the furin cleavage site/o linked glycans

-March 17th 2020: "Proximal Origin of Covid" by Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, Ian Lipkin, Eddie Holmes and Bob Garry is published in Nature Medicine, they describe their analysis as clearly showing that Covid is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus while their main text leaves that possibility open but describe it as unlikely

 

[Hacky McAxe]

we are not talking about the original Feb 1st to Feb 4th flip, we are talking about the Feb 4th to Feb 8th flop

he had conclusive evidence and then he somehow didn't, what happened to that evidence in a few days? was it disproven? did it disappear into thin air?

this is impossible to explain away with just name calling and blaming me, you have to show how this scientist can explain something as conclusive and then non conclusive, either it is conclusive or not conclusive, it can't be both, and when something is conclusive it should be able to hold up and not taken back, thats why its called conclusive, aka the end of the debate, the conclusion etc

You mean the email on the 4th where he says that it's not engineered, then the email on the 8th that says that they can't rule out a lab leak but it's not engineered?

 

[DinkumDog]

ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE

Thanks, Zil.
That changes EVERYTHING .

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Feb 4th:

“The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case. Engineering can mean many things and could be done for either basic research or nefarious reasons, but the data conclusively show that neither was done"

Feb 8th:

"For now, giving the lab theory serious consideration has been highly effective at countering many of the circulating conspiracy theories, including HIV recombinants, bioengineering, etc"

I'm confused. Is there something I'm missing? These aren't conflicting.

 

[Rodzilla]

Feb 4th:

“The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case. Engineering can mean many things and could be done for either basic research or nefarious reasons, but the data conclusively show that neither was done"

Feb 8th:

"For now, giving the lab theory serious consideration has been highly effective at countering many of the circulating conspiracy theories, including HIV recombinants, bioengineering, etc"

I'm confused. Is there something I'm missing? These aren't conflicting.

Hacky McAct acting like he is confused

Feb 4th "The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case. Engineering can mean many things and could be done for either basic research or nefarious reasons, but the data conclusively show that neither was done"

Feb 8th "Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on tying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered."

this is a contradiction, absolutely it is

here is the exchange that kristian andersen was replying to on feb 8th, pages 58 and 59

Christian Dorsten wrote on Feb 9th 6am sydney time (Feb 8th midday-early afternoon in america)


Can someone help me with one question, didn't we congregate to challenge a certain theory, and if we could, drop it?

This whole text reads as if the hypothesis was obvious, or was brought up by some ‘external source', forcing us to respond. Is this the case? It does not seem as if this was linked to the HIV.

Who came up with this story in the beginning? Are we working on debunking our own conspiracy theory?

This was in response to the drafts of the proximal origin paper that were already being drawn up and talk of if it should be published, is clearly suggesting that it should just be dropped since it was originally an internal matter and nobody knows about it

and Eddie Holmes reply

Ever since this outbreak started there have been suggestions that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, if only because of the coincidence of where the outbreak occurred and the location of the lab. I do a lot of work in China and i can you that a lot of people there believe this and believe they are being lied to. Things were made worse when Wuhan Lab published the bat virus sequence, a bat sampled in different province for which they have a large collection of samples.

I believe the aim/question here is whether we, as scientists, should try to write something balanced on the science behind this? There are arguments for and against doing this.

Personally, with the pangolin virus possessing 6/6keysites in the receptor binding domain, | am in favour of the natural evolution theory.

so Holmes has an argument against writing something balanced based on the science, I'd like your explanation for what he means by this statement because it doesn't look like the scientific process at all, a scientist would have no doubt that the correct thing to do is write something balanced based on the science

Ill give you the answer if you are struggling, he is questioning if they should publish the paper coming to a conclusion they know is flimsy as fuck, or just to do nothing, looking at the final paper they did just drop the furin site concern and yes it is still flimsy as fuck

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Hacky McAct acting like he is confused

Feb 4th "The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case. Engineering can mean many things and could be done for either basic research or nefarious reasons, but the data conclusively show that neither was done"

Feb 8th "Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on tying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered."

this is a contradiction, absolutely it is

here is the exchange that kristian andersen was replying to on feb 8th, pages 58 and 59

Christian Dorsten wrote on Feb 9th 6am sydney time (Feb 8th midday-early afternoon in america)


Can someone help me with one question, didn't we congregate to challenge a certain theory, and if we could, drop it?

This whole text reads as if the hypothesis was obvious, or was brought up by some ‘external source', forcing us to respond. Is this the case? It does not seem as if this was linked to the HIV.

Who came up with this story in the beginning? Are we working on debunking our own conspiracy theory?

This was in response to the drafts of the proximal origin paper that were already being drawn up and talk of if it should be published, is clearly suggesting that it should just be dropped since it was originally an internal matter and nobody knows about it

and Eddie Holmes reply

Ever since this outbreak started there have been suggestions that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, if only because of the coincidence of where the outbreak occurred and the location of the lab. I do a lot of work in China and i can you that a lot of people there believe this and believe they are being lied to. Things were made worse when Wuhan Lab published the bat virus sequence, a bat sampled in different province for which they have a large collection of samples.

I believe the aim/question here is whether we, as scientists, should try to write something balanced on the science behind this? There are arguments for and against doing this.

Personally, with the pangolin virus possessing 6/6keysites in the receptor binding domain, | am in favour of the natural evolution theory.

so Holmes has an argument against writing something balanced based on the science, I'd like your explanation for what he means by this statement because it doesn't look like the scientific process at all, a scientist would have no doubt that the correct thing to do is write something balanced based on the science

Ill give you the answer if you are struggling, he is questioning if they should publish the paper coming to a conclusion they know is flimsy as fuck, or just to do nothing, looking at the final paper they did just drop the furin site concern and yes it is still flimsy as fuck

Lab leak and engineered aren't the same thing no matter which way you spin it. You also dropped out the part after the Feb 8th part you quoted where he says that bioengineering was a conspiracy theory. So basically does not support your argument at all.

I was confused because I thought you were smarter than that. Surely you can see how stupid your argument looks when you're trying to argue that if there was a lab leak then it must be bioengineered? Surely.

 

[Rodzilla]

Lab leak and engineered aren't the same thing no matter which way you spin it. You also dropped out the part after the Feb 8th part you quoted where he says that bioengineering was a conspiracy theory. So basically does not support your argument at all.

I was confused because I thought you were smarter than that. Surely you can see how stupid your argument looks when you're trying to argue that if there was a lab leak then it must be bioengineered? Surely.

actually lab leak and engineered is the same thing here since we are talking about the addition of the furin site and the wuhan lab working on adding furin cleavage sites

you mean deliberately engineered to release to the public is different? yes its different and yes i think he describes that briefly on feb 8th, but ive read all the evidence against it and it is entirely based on someone doing it to kill as many people as possible as a weapon, not for someone who has the vaccine and wants to make money

'its not a bio weapon because someone would have used a Sars/mers backbone with optimal ace receptor', if that is enough evidence to convince the scientists that a virus wasn't engineered then its good news for bio terrorists, just use something less deadly than optimal and you will fool everybody

but thats not the issue here, he says he has conclusive evidence to rule out all lab origins then 4 days later doesn't have conclusive evidence to rule out any lab origin and doesn't think they should publish, a contradiction no matter how much you want to complain

 

[Rodzilla]

Hacky McAct detective agency

"hmm this is not a murder because the knife that stabbed the guy in the back was shit, someone would have used a sharper knife"

 

[The DoggFather]

@Rodzilla no point wasting energy. Even if you are right, fuck all will happen.

They all work together.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

actually lab leak and engineered is the same thing here since we are talking about the addition of the furin site and the wuhan lab working on adding furin cleavage sites

you mean deliberately engineered to release to the public is different? yes its different and yes i think he describes that briefly on feb 8th, but ive read all the evidence against it and it is entirely based on someone doing it to kill as many people as possible as a weapon, not for someone who has the vaccine and wants to make money

'its not a bio weapon because someone would have used a Sars/mers backbone with optimal ace receptor', if that is enough evidence to convince the scientists that a virus wasn't engineered then its good news for bio terrorists, just use something less deadly than optimal and you will fool everybody

but thats not the issue here, he says he has conclusive evidence to rule out all lab origins then 4 days later doesn't have conclusive evidence to rule out any lab origin and doesn't think they should publish, a contradiction no matter how much you want to complain

Nope. He said conclusive evidence to rule out engineering, not lab leak. Then he says that lab leak is possible, but still calls engineering a conspiracy. There is no conflict here. You're inventing stuff to make up evidence that you don't have.

 

[Rodzilla]

Nope. He said conclusive evidence to rule out engineering, not lab leak. Then he says that lab leak is possible, but still calls engineering a conspiracy. There is no conflict here. You're inventing stuff to make up evidence that you don't have.

lol you are the one inventing bullshit, first of all anybody mentioning lab escape is specifically talking about an engineered virus that escaped wuhan, nobody thinks it is a natural virus that was just being held in the lab

Kristian Andersen is obviously talking about an engineered virus escaping the lab, specifically mentioning the passage going on at wuhan under bsl2 conditions and that he doesn't have any high confidence in any of the 3 theories considered, 1 of the 3 theories in the proximal origin paper is serial passage

he also mentions not wanting to publish anything and talking about getting additional evidence on his original engineered concerns the furin cleavage site, you are a moron for trying to argue he is not contradicting himself

 

[Hacky McAxe]

lol you are the one inventing bullshit, first of all anybody mentioning lab escape is specifically talking about an engineered virus that escaped wuhan, nobody thinks it is a natural virus that was just being held in the lab

Kristian Andersen is obviously talking about an engineered virus escaping the lab, specifically mentioning the passage going on at wuhan under bsl2 conditions and that he doesn't have any high confidence in any of the 3 theories considered, 1 of the 3 theories in the proximal origin paper is serial passage

he also mentions not wanting to publish anything and talking about getting additional evidence on his original engineered concerns the furin cleavage site, you are a moron for trying to argue he is not contradicting himself

Nope. The Wuhan lab is there to study viruses. Natural viruses. Do you really think that the lab only holds viruses that they have engineered?

Come on man. I know you like to stretch but this is a real stretch.

 

[Rodzilla]

Nope. The Wuhan lab is there to study viruses. Natural viruses. Do you really think that the lab only holds viruses that they have engineered?

Come on man. I know you like to stretch but this is a real stretch.

in this case covid has the additional furin cleavage site and he describes passage in the previous sentence and passage in the same sentence, he talks about the furin cleavage site again, he talks about not having enough evidence to publish yet

any person who is not a scumbag sympathetic to the cause would see the proximal origin of covid paper as a piece of trash that the author doesn't even believe in, the arguments made to discount engineering are the stretch you should be concerned about, "covid is not engineered because someone would have used a sars/mers backbone or a backbone that has been published already known to be dangerous to humans", that is a mighty strange way to investigate

how do you keep coming back making moronic statements in desperation, like counting a study the wrong way won't change the result in any way, they didn't know burnett was a nutcase even though he said it directly on a government committee, now doing mental gymnastics around Andersens exact words meaning something else

 

[Hacky McAxe]

in this case covid has the additional furin cleavage site and he describes passage in the previous sentence and passage in the same sentence, he talks about the furin cleavage site again, he talks about not having enough evidence to publish yet

any person who is not a scumbag sympathetic to the cause would see the proximal origin of covid paper as a piece of trash that the author doesn't even believe in, the arguments made to discount engineering are the stretch you should be concerned about, "covid is not engineered because someone would have used a sars/mers backbone or a backbone that has been published already known to be dangerous to humans", that is a mighty strange way to investigate

how do you keep coming back making moronic statements in desperation, like counting a study the wrong way won't change the result in any way, they didn't know burnett was a nutcase even though he said it directly on a government committee, now doing mental gymnastics around Andersens exact words meaning something else

Nope. It's pretty clear if you take the blinders off.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Oooh, sorry Rodzy. The judge said that there's not enough evidence so he has dismissed the case with extreme prejudice.