Glad we’ve moved so quickly from one guy posting something tagged ‘Perspective’ in the Commentary section of Science that doesn’t contain any new information, didn’t include any science or research, wasn’t peer reviewed, wasn’t considered worth including in the print edition, and wasn’t even the most high profile Covid story in the Commentary section yesterday, to now adopting those opinions as established scientific fact.
3 Likes
Science still has a print version?
from one guy posting […] wasn’t peer reviewed
Acknowledgments
Thanks to four anonymous reviewers and to A. Crits-Christoph, E. Holmes, D. Robertson, J. Wertheim, J. Pekar, K. Andersen, S. Goldstein, A. Rambaut, H. Mourant, D. Yang, L. Wang, S. Chen, C. Di, and Q. Jiang for assistance and discussions.
If you have any specific criticisms I’d love to hear them.
The Chinese conspiracy theory was always the outlier theory here.
China must be more forthcoming with data and information related to the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Monday.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that there had been “many failures” during the pandemic due to a lack of rules or obligations under the WHO’s current 2005 International Health Regulations.
“We need to continue until we know the origins, we need to push harder because we should learn from what happened this time in order to [do] better in the future,” Tedros told a news briefing for Geneva journalists.
I remember a mask connected to plastic tubing with a bowl on the end loaded with pot. I was 13, and the 2 older brothers of my friend were passing it back and forth on the way to my first concert, the Doobie Brothers. I was scared of the contraption, but after a few sips of blackberry brandy, I gave it a shot, except I didnt use the elastic band to secure it to my head.
Awesome concert.
And in retrospect that device could probably put an end to Covid…lol
What is the forum consensus on the origin of the damn virus? I believe it was pretty obviously a leak at Wuhan lab.
There’s this online sleuthing group that I was reading that tends to agree.
The group is called DRASTIC. DRASTIC ( Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19 )
Upon reading their wiki it seems the group split in 2 a la this site and Maddog Mason’s.
I haven’t looked at the splinter site yet. Some interesting stuff on there imo.
And it’s not like I’m trying to call it the China Virus or pinning it on China, because afterall there were and most likely still are US research dollars and US researchers still working in Wuhan labs.
Hi mate. Theres a big thread for this discussion. I’ve moved your post here to continue the discussion with those who are keen to do so.
Yes, thank you. A whole big thread.
Perhaps, tomorrow, I will pull some stuff out of that DRASTIC site. Loads of interesting stuff about corrupt vaccine manufacturers and the boatloads of Covid dollars received bt varuous pharma companies. Probably funneled back to Trump and cronies. Peer-reviewed stuff and so forth. Viral chem stuff that’s way over my paygrade. But legit stuff imo
1 Like
That paper appears to rely on infection data from Chinese govt.
And the last thing those “21 scientists” want is for the general public to realize how dangerous gain-of-function experiments are. Their research dollars and livelihoods might go poof.
So I was looking through the emails obtained by GOP members of Congress via FOIA and there is some not great stuff in there. Firstly here are a couple of virologists expressing serious doubt that the virus has a natural origin:
Now here is the view of this guy Jeremy Farrar in particular:
That was February 4. Here is a piece of correspondence to The Lancet, published February 19, and therefore presumably written earlier:
Farrar, Mr. 50/50 Lab Origin, put his name to this:
The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
I don’t at this point think that COVID came from a lab, but this does substantiate the idea that early in the pandemic, the lab leak theory was denounced as conspiracy for entirely political reasons.
3 Likes
What interested me in that paper was the section “EVIDENCE FROM GENOMIC STRUCTURE AND
ONGOING EVOLUTION OF SARS-CoV-2”.
If your response to any mainstream papers about the origin of the virus is “but what about conflicts of interest tho” we’re going to have a bad time. As I posted above, I agree that early in the pandemic the lab leak theory was unjustifiably dismissed for political reasons, but that doesn’t make it true.
What you posted reads a lot like more “scientists keep an open mind while they figure stuff out” while denouncing bad faith conspiratorial bullshit to me. We talked a bunch about those concerns early on, they were examined and didn’t pan out… openly.
The assumption that the piece was written earlier or signed onto earlier is nonsense. Two weeks was a massive amount of time for new information then.
Actually, there’s an email from February 6 referencing a draft of the letter. Will find a link when I’m at a computer.
This is “paper reports guy says other people are thinking a thing”, so grain of salt and all that.
2 Likes
how do you unintentionally create something in a lab? is this like a “you got chocolate in my peanut butter” scenario?