< 1 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Thanks, Dr. Fauci. . .

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1903
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
26 July 2021 13:45
 
nonverbal - 26 July 2021 01:39 PM
weird buffalo - 26 July 2021 12:21 PM
nonverbal - 26 July 2021 10:04 AM

Weird, an accident can happen. The coverup is sinister.

All evidence about the virus and how it spreads indicates it came from the huanan market, and not the lab.  What piece of evidence about the virus do you think contradicts this?

I don’t care about what is theoretically possible.  I care about what actually happened.

Yes—all evidence that you see as being valid.

The evidence you presented in this post was unconvincing.

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
26 July 2021 15:24
 
Jefe - 26 July 2021 08:56 AM
nonverbal - 26 July 2021 07:18 AM

Scientists and engineers sometimes need to explain what they do, in lay terms without jargon. Technical writers need not be experts in the fields they work in, after all. (That is, you don’t need a master’s or Ph.D to be a technical writer.)

I grant you that science communication is lacking in some cases, but it is a 2-way street.  All the plain language in the world might not be enough for a lay-person to understand the ins and outs of virology.  For instance, did you know that the seasonal influenza vaccines were developed utilizing gain-of-function research on influenza?

Why scientists tweak lab viruses to make them more contagious
(by Emily Willingham, American scientist and journalist)

I reckon that one doesn’t need any technical proficiency in Biology in order to be able to get an idea of what the scientists explain about “gain of function” in an article to the general public wrote by a professional on the topic. And by doing just a little brief research one can realise there’s always been other effective alternative techniques to test a potential virus threat.

If a virus has already moved from an animal host to humans, gain of function research may be unnecessary —- this was stated by Michael Imperiale, a professor of microbiology and immunology and associate vice president for research and compliance at the University of Michigan. He continues: “In these cases, there may be animal models that serve as useful surrogates for humans in testing the virus’s effects.”

Again, fact is that there’s not only ONE type of gain of function research practice, but rather critically different approaches and targets within the same study. So much so that one proposed term to represent the more threatening subset of this research is “potential pandemic pathogens”,

Varied techniques to enhance some aspect of an organism’s functioning are commonplace in research and applied to everything from mice to measles. One typical application of this approach is tweaking mouse genes to generate more of a protein that limits fat deposition.

But that is not the kind of gain-of-function study that raises fears among scientists and regulators. The high-risk practices are those that create mutations to examine whether a pathogen becomes more contagious or lethal as a means of estimating future threats.

“In their editorial, [Michael] Imperiale and his co-author Arturo Casadevall, editor in chief of mBIO, wrote that even predicting the threat level of an accidental release is difficult. After publication of the studies of ferret-to-ferret transmission of engineered H5N1, two groups tried to predict what would have happened if this virus had escaped into the human population. One team, Imperiale and Casadevall wrote, predicted an “extremely high level” of transmission. The other, from one of the labs involved in the ferret-influenza work, concluded otherwise.”

 

 

[ Edited: 26 July 2021 15:29 by Rick Robson]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2213
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
27 July 2021 08:42
 

Rick, do you see any controversy in the matter of covid-19’s origination?

 
 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
27 July 2021 11:46
 
nonverbal - 27 July 2021 08:42 AM

Rick, do you see any controversy in the matter of covid-19’s origination?

Well, the controversy relies on the fact that there is neither credible evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was ever known to virologists before it emerged in December 2019 nor that it was engineered from gain of function studies.

I think it’s worth of notice, though, as described in the article that I previously posted, that a gain of function study was also previously performed with bat SARS-like coronaviruses to understand cross-species transmission risk. And, particularly on that study, Dr. Michael Imperiale led the effort for the 2014 moratorium, as the study was unanimously deemed as high-risk virus research for having caused the transformation of the H5N1 influenza virus (“bird flu”) into a version capable of airborne transmission among ferrets—making mammal-to-mammal transmission easier set off alarm bells in the scientific community.

(edited for the following reason: replaced “transforming” by “having caused the transformation of”)

[ Edited: 27 July 2021 13:35 by Rick Robson]
 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2021 07:45
 
Rick Robson - 27 July 2021 11:46 AM
nonverbal - 27 July 2021 08:42 AM

Rick, do you see any controversy in the matter of covid-19’s origination?

Well, the controversy relies on the fact that there is neither credible evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was ever known to virologists before it emerged in December 2019 nor that it was engineered from gain of function studies.

I think it’s worth of notice, though, as described in the article that I previously posted, that a gain of function study was also previously performed with bat SARS-like coronaviruses to understand cross-species transmission risk. And, particularly on that study, Dr. Michael Imperiale led the effort for the 2014 moratorium, as the study was unanimously deemed as high-risk virus research for having caused the transformation of the H5N1 influenza virus (“bird flu”) into a version capable of airborne transmission among ferrets—making mammal-to-mammal transmission easier set off alarm bells in the scientific community.

(edited for the following reason: replaced “transforming” by “having caused the transformation of”)

Just to clarify my position on this issue about the COVID-19’s origin, I’d rather keep open minded to any of the possibilities already stated—either zoonotic transfer directly from a bat to a human or through an intermediate host animal or a lab accident from research of similar viruses—because not even the scientists have the details for at least making a coherent statement of how likely each of these scenarios is.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1903
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
28 July 2021 12:11
 

Unless of course you’d care to read the paper authored by scientists that I linked recently….  which I also summarized in a post.

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2021 14:13
 

WB, I did care to read that zenodo.org article, that’s sure a great research for all the scientific community to bear in mind during this whole process of investigation. But, as their collaborative efforts are still not close to an unanimously definitive conclusion on the origin of that virus, no possibility can be entirely dismissed.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1903
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
28 July 2021 14:19
 
Rick Robson - 28 July 2021 02:13 PM

WB, I did care to read that zenodo.org article, that’s sure a great research for all the scientific community to bear in mind during this whole process of investigation. But, as their collaborative efforts are still not close to an unanimously definitive conclusion on the origin of that virus, no possibility can be entirely dismissed.

Sure.

We also can’t rule out that the aliens spread the virus with their drones, as spotted by the navy.  But there’s no evidence that suggests this is true.

We shouldn’t believe things just because they cannot be entirely dismissed. We should believe things when the evidence indicates it is likely true.

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2021 14:57
 
weird buffalo - 28 July 2021 02:19 PM
Rick Robson - 28 July 2021 02:13 PM

WB, I did care to read that zenodo.org article, that’s sure a great research for all the scientific community to bear in mind during this whole process of investigation. But, as their collaborative efforts are still not close to an unanimously definitive conclusion on the origin of that virus, no possibility can be entirely dismissed.

Sure.

We also can’t rule out that the aliens spread the virus with their drones, as spotted by the navy.  But there’s no evidence that suggests this is true.

We shouldn’t believe things just because they cannot be entirely dismissed. We should believe things when the evidence indicates it is likely true.

Yea but sorry, I’ve always been a bit careful when it comes to definitive conclusion based on statistics. Maybe my fault, but remember that history tells us that even the most probabilistic priority for a scientific evidence as pointing to a true outcome has already been debunked by other further accurate evidences that appeared afterwards along the process of research.

As for the probability you stated of the virus being spread by Aliens, in fact you’re right, it can’t be ruled out either until we find factual proof against it. But then again, there are assumptions that sometimes have to be made in cases like this Alien one where scientists likely will never find a concrete proof for their theories. That’s a case then where probabilistic analysis come into final and definitive play. And, according to my viewpoint, those drones (or UAVs) much more likely are of earthly origin, remember that they can be remotely commanded from a base thousands of kilometers away. But I wouldn’t dismiss either that they might likely be operated during their own nation’s field test programs, even if the Navy didn’t know anything about them at all.

[ Edited: 28 July 2021 14:59 by Rick Robson]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1903
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
28 July 2021 15:03
 
Rick Robson - 28 July 2021 02:57 PM
weird buffalo - 28 July 2021 02:19 PM
Rick Robson - 28 July 2021 02:13 PM

WB, I did care to read that zenodo.org article, that’s sure a great research for all the scientific community to bear in mind during this whole process of investigation. But, as their collaborative efforts are still not close to an unanimously definitive conclusion on the origin of that virus, no possibility can be entirely dismissed.

Sure.

We also can’t rule out that the aliens spread the virus with their drones, as spotted by the navy.  But there’s no evidence that suggests this is true.

We shouldn’t believe things just because they cannot be entirely dismissed. We should believe things when the evidence indicates it is likely true.

Yea but sorry, I’ve always been a bit careful when it comes to definitive conclusion based on statistics. Maybe my fault, but remember that history tells us that even the most probabilistic priority for a scientific evidence as pointing to a true outcome has already been debunked by other further accurate evidences that appeared afterwards along the process of research.

As for the probability you stated of the virus being spread by Aliens, in fact you’re right, it can’t be ruled out either until we find factual proof against it. But then again, there are assumptions that sometimes have to be made in cases like this Alien one where scientists likely will never find a concrete proof for their theories. That’s a case then where probabilistic analysis come into play. And, according to my viewpoint, those drones (or UAVs) much more likely are of earthly origin, remember that they can be remotely commanded from a base thousands of kilometers away. But I wouldn’t dismiss either that they might likely be operated during their own nation’s field test programs, even if the Navy didn’t know anything about them at all.

Where did I say we should reach a “definitive conclusion”?  In fact, I specifically didn’t say that… and I didn’t say it very intentionally.  From a scientific viewpoint, one should never have a “definitive conclusion”.

That said… one should NOT conclude something is even likely when the current evidence tells us it isn’t.  Can we keep investigating?  Yes, but all means.  More information is good.  Outside of that investigation though, we should proceed as if the most probably answer (based on the evidence) is likely true (notice that I said LIKELY, and not definitively)

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2021 15:19
 

^Maybe I misinterpreted you, but you implied to me that we’d best make a definitive conclusion (“we should believe things”) when the evidence indicates it is likely true. Different strokes here, I guess.

EDIT: Come to think of it again, I guess the word “believe” in your sentence was meant not as a word of faith but rather as your most probable evidence. If that’s the case I’m sorry for misinterpreting you.

[ Edited: 28 July 2021 15:28 by Rick Robson]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1903
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
28 July 2021 21:24
 

Yup.

Probably the only thing I have 100% confidence in is the existence of my mind.  I am not a solipsist, but I can’t conclusively prove that anyone else even exists.  I do think the evidence strongly suggests other people exist though.  From there… it should be pretty obvious that my confidence on the topic of this thread is significantly lower, but there is more evidence to support a zoological origin than a lab leak, and until that swings in the other direction, I will go with the side that has more plausible evidence.

Now, if you asked me to bet money on it, that would depend on who’s money, how much, and at what odds.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2213
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
31 July 2021 07:17
 
weird buffalo - 28 July 2021 09:24 PM

Yup.

Probably the only thing I have 100% confidence in is the existence of my mind.  I am not a solipsist, but I can’t conclusively prove that anyone else even exists.  I do think the evidence strongly suggests other people exist though.  From there… it should be pretty obvious that my confidence on the topic of this thread is significantly lower, but there is more evidence to support a zoological origin than a lab leak, and until that swings in the other direction, I will go with the side that has more plausible evidence.

Now, if you asked me to bet money on it, that would depend on who’s money, how much, and at what odds.

Nicely put, weird. I share your views about acceptance of claims people make. But back to the topic at hand.

Would you favor Wuhan labs being shut down while investigative authorities work to unravel the big mystery without being threatened by political hacks in charge? Or does the world need for the lab to continue with its highly technical work uninterrupted? I ask because Josh Rogin, in an editorial, sees a need for a great deal of caution regarding the notion of trusting the competence, sincerity and honesty of Chinese government officials. At this point, is it even possible to find answers to questions that were asked nearly two years ago? Why is it taking so long? Gee, I wonder. . .

. . . it doesn’t matter which “gain of function” definition you prefer. What everyone can now see clearly is that NIH was collaborating on risky research with a Chinese lab that has zero transparency and zero accountability during a crisis — and no one in a position of power addressed that risk. Fauci is arguing the system worked. It didn’t. Even if the lab leak theory isn’t true, what’s clear is that we need more oversight of this risky research, both in the United States and in China.

. . .

Looking ahead, we must question whether U.S. government investment in this risky research, especially in collaboration with China, is worth these risks. Certainly, the current plan to spend $1.2 billion to drastically expand the initiative known as the Global Virome Project, an effort to dig up dangerous viruses and experiment on them in labs, including labs in China, must be totally reexamined.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/22/what-the-fight-between-anthony-fauci-and-rand-paul-is-really-about/

 

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1903
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
31 July 2021 09:26
 

I want the scientists to know as much as possible about the various diseases we might come in contact with.  The Wuhan lab wasn’t constructed until 2014, or about 12 years after the first SARS incident.  SARS is a problem we have to deal with, regardless of the lab’s existence.  Reducing our capacity to study those diseases is a bad idea.

I’m certainly okay with making funding conditional with cooperation and safety investigations though.

Part of the problem is that one of the two parties in the US has long made the CDC a political football.  They used to relegate their usage of it to more politically hotbutton topics, but they’re now just making everything a politically divisive fight.  The more that happens, the more we’re going to have to pool our resources with other countries, which includes China.  The more independent we want to make our institutions, the more free of political hacks it needs to be.

[ Edited: 31 July 2021 09:28 by weird buffalo]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2213
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
31 July 2021 16:40
 

When in doubt, blame it on Trump.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >