literally none of that is true. You dismiss a 30 minute podcast seven minutes after it is linked. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Nothing like making an internet point by posting a 30 minute podcast. Even when you lose, you still win.
hey man, I just shared a podcast I found interesting. I’ll bet others will find it interesting as well. I wasn’t making a point. I said, I found this interesting. Others can listen to it and disagree, or not listen to it, whatever. What is extremely dumb is to attack it without listening to it or knowing the first thing about it, which is what that caffeine guy is doing.
Buddy, her twitter feed is available on the public and so are your posts in this thread. You’ve cited her repeatedly. I’m sure you can find her tweets. She’s way outside scientific mainstream.
Yeah. I read her tweets. You’ve misrepresented them. If you want to attack her tweets, post them in this thread and attack them. You won’t because you’re lying about them.
Yeah man, UVC light in ventilation systems seems like a promising idea.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been edited to attribute the following quote to Alex Risen: ‘We know that we’re not producing any negative products. We know that at the concentrations that you’re at, you’re not getting negative effects.’ Additionally, some officials warn that bipolar ionization could emit byproducts that are harmful to inhale indoors.
1 Like
The company has a silly name though…
1 Like
Right. They’re actually a well regarded company that makes good products. I think we have like ten or so of their fans in our plant.
A silly name, totally unproven benefits, and their product might pump ionized chemicals that do god knows what into the air.
1 Like
Sounds like they could stand to work with some experienced virologists to show the effectiveness of their products.
I’m not convinced that Socrates wasn’t just JAQing off a large percentage of the time.
1 Like
I thought we couldn’t trust virologists because they’re all going to lie just to keep their grant money coming?
1 Like
I’m not sure what to tell you if you think that, I certainly never said anything like that.
For the record I think Socrates (pronounced SO-crates) was mostly JAQing off and his method is dumb and annoying, but I carve out a special exemption for him as the original JAQ off.
1 Like
I should have clarified that my claim is strictly about science / scientists in practice and am not sure if it applies to philosophy. Answers (even bad / wrong ones) are the products that scientists make and are judged by. They are expensive and hard to get. It’s never questions. Sometimes it appears like the hard work was coming up with interesting or paradoxical questions but that’s never the hard part. Questions Guy is basically Ideas Guy.
Socrates: “Do you even know what love really is, exactly?”
Ancient dude: “Uh… I guess not?”
Socrates: “I are the greatest philosopher of all time!”
2 Likes
Bump.
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038
This is quite a long argument that COVID originated in a lab. I have to say that I found it quite convincing. I should warn that the author is a race-science bro, but I don’t think that’s relevant except insofar as it demonstrates a willingness to make unpopular arguments.
Please read the whole thing if you want to comment on it, but the argument is very briefly this:
-
With the previous novel coronaviruses, the intermediate host species was identified and several variations of the virus were identified as it gradually became more infective in humans. SARS-CoV-2 emerges fully formed, there are no known previous iterations.
-
In comparison to its closest known relative, SARS-CoV-2 has what’s called a furin cleavage site. Essentially this is an RNA sequence (P-R-R-A) inserted into the spike protein at precisely the right location to facilitate entry to human cells. Having this arise by random mutation is so low-probability as to be impossible.
-
The other option for how it could naturally acquire the furin cleavage site is via recombination, except that no wild-type SARS related coronaviruses possess one, so where SARS2 would get one from is unclear.
-
The coding for the furin cleavage site is very strange. Amino acids are encoded for by groups of three RNA base pairs. These groups are called codons. As there are more codons than amino acids, most amino acids can be coded for by several different codons. For arginine any of CGU, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA or AGG are possible. However, different organisms prefer different codons, and only 5% of SARS2’s arginine codons are CGG. That codon is however commonly used in labs. For the furin cleavage site inserted into the spike protein of SARS2, both arginines are coded CGG.
“When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus,” said David Baltimore, an eminent virologist and former president of CalTech. “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2,” he said.
- The Wuhan Institute was known to be working with novel bat coronaviruses and doing so called gain-of-function experiments:
“Since 1992 the virology community has known that the one sure way to make a virus deadlier is to give it a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction in the laboratory,” writes Dr. Steven Quay, a biotech entrepreneur interested in the origins of SARS2. “At least eleven gain-of-function experiments, adding a furin site to make a virus more infective, are published in the open literature, including [by] Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
There’s more. Like I said, read the piece.
1 Like
If you want to cut down on reading time, start at the section “Inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology” as everything before that is pretty pointless. Also skip the section about lab safety.