You seem very certain about something you’re not an expert in…even more certain than most of the real experts.
1 Like
The lab doing research on a project after its proposal gets rejected is a fun theory.
1 Like
We have a resident virologist here, he also thinks the lab leak stuff is probably bullshit.
1 Like
“Probably”. I agree with that. What I don’t agree with is near certainty.
The real expert consensus is that natural origin is, by far, the most likely. The consensus also states that lab leak, wherein there was some sort of virus collected from a bat during some sort of covid research in china, then that virus got out is second. Lab created, which is what is posted here, is far down the list because it usually leaves markers because when you genetically modify RNA and DNA it leaves evidence. The sequence for many early patients was kept and it doesn’t have those markers.
Your issue here is most likely that you do not understand the difference between lab leak and lab created. Lab leak is orders of magnitude more likely than created, and is at least plausible, even if not likely when compared to a purely natural origin.
Alina Chan seems to be the Emily Oster for the new generation. Every MSM reporter inexplicably goes to this one post-doc for spicy contrarian takes.
2 Likes
I have no dog in this fight as I have no expertise to rely on but I know iCanadaland is A+ journalism not known for posting junk science and apparently her work was backed up by the Globe and Mail which is our NYT.
Science journalism is really fucking hard, and imo social/political coverage does not correlate well with it. I really really doubt this woman has found something compelling that everyone else missed.
This woman.
1 Like
Troll better jal
You are just wrong Vic. He is one of our best progressive journalists and his site is awesome. He would be left of 99% of US media.
I am taking about the site owner not the woman he interviews.
Also, I just clicked on the link caffeine posted and he has decided that everything she says is wrong because of a 2 sentence summary of a different book she wrote was posted on encyclopedia.com.
She might be nuts, but I’ll take the globe and mail and Canada land over encyclopedia.com. if this is the standard level of media criticality he puts into all his research I have other important questions.
2 Likes
I’m sure it’s a reasonable source, but that doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes from time to time.
We’re there any actual virologists interviewed for the story or just this reporter?
Just her. He pushed back a fair amount and they do a good job delineating what she has been able to substantiate from just hypotheses.
Honestly, it all sounds a bit conspiracy theory nuts to me and I wouldn’t have even posted it if it wasn’t on Canada land.
The broad strokes of her argument seemed reasonable to me as someone with absolutely no expertise on the matter.
Clovis did you actually look into that book she wrote at all? Look into it. Believe it or not, I looked at it more than that one link, but left it as a quick summation of her nonsense.
If you want, you could try to actually summarize the points she was making as well.
How long ago was that book? (What book are we talking about?) Has she said anything to confirm or contradict that book since it was written?
Clearly it’s Cloak of Green: The Links between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business published in 1995.
The idea doesn’t seem that far fetched at first—I’d be willing to consider, as one reviewer puts it, “the Canadian government used/is using environmental non-profits and pseudo organizations of its own creation to influence domestic policy in other nations.” Sure, why not.
However, same reviewer goes on to describe her final thesis as “the corporate led totalitarian takeover of nation-states is in progress now”. Um, ok.
Perhaps tellingly, the four items listed under “Customers who bought this item also bought”, at least for me, are ALL climate change denial books.
Presumably long out of print, Amazon wants to sell me a used paperback of this book for US$473.79, so I will sadly not be reading it for myself.
@clovis8 She’s got a more recent (2001) book called Bones: Discovering the First Americans which you would probably find more interesting. 
1 Like
This stuff a lot more interesting than the podcast interview with some rando. I don’t know that it’s all that informative about COVID origins, but it makes it pretty clear that there is a conspiracy at work here, it’s just that the goal of the conspiracy is to keep public scrutiny away from the inside mad-science stuff these people are working on, not to cover up any evidence that directly bears on COVID.
Or maybe no one wants to be exposed to a bunch of conspiracy driven fucking morons and have them in your shit. I can tell you from first hand experience that’s way more awful than you most likely realize from my time in NYC. This grant is for work in fucking North Carolina that was not funded, it’s an absolute nothing burger of a story.
Yes, the panel of scientists deciding the study was too risky to be awarded grant funding proves they’re up to some diabolical shit.
1 Like