Instead of making people look up stuff, why don’t you explicitly quote and link your claim. Thank you in advance
I literally already did that. I provided page numbers and everything.
You provided 10 pages of report. You did not quote the exact part. Do that.
I did that part too. The link is a pdf I can’t copy it, but I’ve typed the quote exactly, and in its entirety.
Then I’m left baffled, as that quote does not support your assertion. If you can provide actual support for your position of that report, please feel free to update us.
My assertion is that they don’t recommend investigating the lab further. The recommendations they give do not recommend investigating the lab further. What are you talking about?
Like, as my earlier post explains, the other hypotheses have specific recommendations for follow up investigations of food chains and frozen specimens and animals related to the Wuhan market. They don’t make any such recommendations for the lab hypothesis. They don’t recommend investigating the Wuhan lab at all.
Also this is now the second time that you’ve done the “please cite your sources to my exact specifications and do not make me read anything” thing with me and then completely refused to engage with it when I did. It’s fucking obnoxious.
3 Likes
This sounds a long way from “Nothing to see, we shouldn’t investigate?”
I’m done here, but this is conspiracy herpaderp. I’m willing to listen to good-faith criticism about the limitations of the investigation and the need for more studies, but not this Churchill garbage. No one is saying it isn’t a live possibility or that it shouldn’t be investigated.
1 Like
In what way? This is a serious question. They’re recommending just continuing with the normal day to day administrative and internal review of labs and investigating new evidence that might be provided to them. How is that different than “nothing to see, we shouldn’t investigate?”
To be clear “they” in this context meaning the authors of the report, not the WHO as a body or the WHO director.
I’m sorry it took more than 3 minutes to “engage” with you. The quote you list does not come from any recommendation. It doesn’t even come from the pages that you cited. It’s under a subheading of what would increase knowledge of the lab leak hypothesis.
Bob states that the report says that we should not investigate the lab leak further. That is not true, and in fact directly contradicted by the quote that you seem to think supports the statement. It is further contradicted by the director of the organization that wrote the report, leaving no room for a reasonable person to misunderstand this.
The report recommends “Establish a global expert group to support joint traceability research on the suspected origin of the epidemic” and in no way states that lab hypothesis should not be looked into. The report prioritizes more concrete recommendations for things that are more likely, as it should be. Resources should not be directed based on conspiratorial nonsense, it should be based on likelihood.
Since we’re all in agreement that this scenario is “very unlikely” (except when some of y’all are arguing that it’s likely of course), I’m left wondering why you’re complaining.
Team Lab Leak has been consistent in its reasoning and explanations for over a year, and all accumulated evidence continues to support it as a valid hypothesis.
Team All Theories Matter started out shrieking about conspiracy theories and racism and has spent months moving goalposts, backpedaling, and pretending they didn’t say what they did, only to finally be forcibly dragged to the point where they grudgingly admit, under great duress, that yeah, maybe there’s an outside chance, but oh by the way you’re all still horribly racist conspiracy mongers and let’s deliberately and repeatedly muddy the waters about how the director of the WHO immediately walked back his own organization’s report but we’ll still pretend that report is the gospel and just in case we’ll maintain a sideline of discrediting absolutely anybody and everybody who even dares to suggest anything contrary to our firmly established One True Source of True Truth which has in reality been a constantly evolving mishmash of self-contradictory nonsense delivered with heaping piles of condescension to hide its inherent incoherence.
14 Likes
Well that’s a fair sum up.
You’re not concerned at all that people with actual scientific backgrounds are lined up on the other side of you here?
Maybe I’ll be concerned if you ever stop pretending that’s the dichotomy and instead link me to something that backs up your case. Or really just state what your case is, because that seems to change pretty frequently.
5 Likes
My position hasn’t changed a bit this entire thread:
If you have any specific requests please let me know.
It does come from the pages I cited, and like…
So they recommend taking specific investigative steps to increase knowledge about the hypotheses surrounding the wet market. They don’t suggest any specific investigative steps to increase knowledge about the lab leak hypothesis.
The “global expert group” might look into the lab leak, sure, but that’s not one of the recommendations in the report.
Correct, which is very different from recommending against further investigation into a lab leak hypothesis, especially in the context of their general recommendation. Seems like we’re in agreement.
In summary, the joint team considered the following ranking of potential introduction pathways, from
very likely to extremely unlikely: (1) through an intermediate host; (2) direct zoonotic introduction; (3)
introduction through cold/ food chain; and (4) introduction resulting from a laboratory incident.
Building from the evidence for the studies conducted so far, follow-up research studies were proposed
for the first three options. The arguments considered and underpinning these choices are summarized
for each scenario in the section below.
p. 112 of the report
And what do you think that means? Because it does not support what you’ve said thus far.
You guys are always so quick to point out that you don’t actually believe the lab leak hypothesis is likely. Again, why are you upset then that it’s not the main priority for an investigation?
While it sounds super duper fun to run around in circles for a while arguing with you about constantly shifting semantic nuances, I’m definitely, definitely, definitely not going to do that. So, you may never know what I think that paragraph means. Sorry.
2 Likes
There’s no shifting in semantics. You said they recommended against something. They, in fact, said no such thing. You are the one trying to play a semantic game to frame the WHO as not investigating a lab leak theory whatsoever and that’s utter bullshit.
If you want to move on, great! What concrete things do you wish the WHO was doing?