Dr. Fauci “not convinced” coronavirus developed naturally

[Generals]

Probably intent. China wants to maintain stability and prevent dissidence at any cost necessary. Probably also has a historic precedence; the fear of the country falling apart again. That fear is most likely what drives most of Xi's actions. In many instances where China's actions could damage it's international relations the country have kept remarkable restraint; the protests in Hong Kong, Trump's provocations or military exercises in the Pacific. China wants to maintain the status-quo while at the same time being recognized as the new global superpower. As long as the established globalization paradigma of mutual benefit stays intact I don't think China will ever pursue an aggressive expansionist policy like your typical fascist dictators. The economic losses are simply too great. I also don't think there is much indication to believe that China is all that interested in the affairs of other countries in the first place other than the countries it considers part of it's dominion. That China tried to deflect blame for covid was also largely in response to Trump's incessant 'China virus' remarks that forced the regime into propaganda mode. The country was more open at the start of the pandemic(not the initial outbreak when they tried to sweep it under the rug) by even publishing the virus' genome very early on so countries could start developing vaccines.

No, no and no.
China never shows actual restraint.
China broke the agreement they signed when being given Hong Kong by the UK and have continuously breached international law in the South China Sea by de-facto annexing the waters of other countries. Trump's military exercises were peanuts compared to China's provocations.
And no China doesn't want to maintain any status quo, otherwise they wouldn't have taken down the two system approach with Hong Kong, Annexed maritime territory and upped their threats towards Taiwan.
Off course China won't start WW3 and that's simply because they're more pragmatic than Hitler or Mussolini. But Franco didn't start a world war either. You don't need to start invading countries left and right to be a fascist.
And again... no, China started lying and hiding information before Trump called it the Chinese Virus. And based on how they lied and hid information they deserved all the petty political attacks they got. They deserve much bigger consequences than that actually. And if you want to mention petty political moves, what about China receiving help from Europe in the early days of the pandemic and asking the EU to keep quiet about it to save face and afterwards rubbing it all over everyone's faces whenever they send any kind of help when things stabilised in China?

And lastly, China's history is no excuse for any of its behavior and neither is their intent. Especially since their intent is very similar to the one of Hitler for example. His intent was also to have a great and prosper Third Reich and he identified some races as being in the way of that dream. It's no different from China which considers that a great China requires it's population to be Han(-like). The real issue is not the goal, because every leader's goal is the same (reaching greatness for their country) it's what they consider the correct approach to reach that goal. A modern western social liberal country believes greatness is reached through enhanced freedom, equality and fairness. A fascist country believes it's reached through extreme nationalism, far reaching homogeneity and oppression.

 

[Seanchaidh]

This goes to credibility...


Centrist liberals in the United States are warming to the lab leak theory for the same reason that Trump liked it: it distracts from the inadequacy of the US government's response.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Do you recognise the difference between 1) having no positive evidence for something; and 2) having proof that something isn't the case?

Because this is getting old now.

Yes it is getting old.

There is more proof death numbers weren't tampered with than Covid-19 not having come from a lab lol.

 

[Adam Jensen]

This goes to credibility...


Centrist liberals in the United States are warming to the lab leak theory for the same reason that Trump liked it: it distracts from the inadequacy of the US government's response.

This is meaningless. The guy didn't invent this shit, he reported on other people's findings. And he's hardly the only one.

 

[Kwak]

This is an interesting read...

Key quotes -
"The paper that all the headlines are based on appears to be a perspective piece written by three authors that will soon appear in the journal Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery. This is a new journal that was launched in August 2020, which means that while it's connected to a fairly prestigious journal it's quite hard to say much about the publication itself.

And the paper clearly makes some quite controversial claims - the authors are quoted as saying that they have found "unique fingerprints" in the virus that could only have been created in a lab.

Moreover, the paper claims that China has deliberately destroyed data that could prove this hypothesis, which is a pretty wild claim to see published in a peer-reviewed academic piece.
...
However, in the Daily Mail piece, there is an interesting quote- the authors say that they have had this data "for a year", but were ignored by academics and major journals. They also say that this new paper is essentially the same as their earlier work, but expands on their initial ideas.
...
Now, this initial paper isn't present on a preprint server or academic publication - instead, it is currently hosted on the right-wing Norwegian newsletter Minerva, as part of a longer article in which the authors blame "foul play and political considerations" for the fact that they were rejected from both Science and Nature*.
...
The authors claim that their argument provides sufficient evidence to "reverse the burden of proof", which just isn't how logic works at all.

In fact, the paper doesn't even claim to demonstrate that COVID-19 was created in a lab, it just posits the theory and then says that others should disprove this theory because it is so "parsimonious".

That is…not very scientific.
...
Moreover, the paper itself appears to fall apart even after quite minimal examination. This is not my area of expertise, but there are numerous scientists online who have picked apart the arguments made in the document, many of which appear to be fairly basic mistakes.
...
After going over 5 ways in which they think the virus looks suspicious, the authors imply that China is hiding the lab leak evidence from the world but give no factual basis for this claim.
...
Now, it's entirely possible that the authors have tons of new evidence in their unpublished work, but given that they have said that this new paper is based largely on the old one that seems unlikely. This "study" just shows that these scientists think the virus came from a lab, but three people with a theory does not provide convincing evidence of much.
...
That being said, the evidence from the WHO report is also not entirely useless. For example, there is no evidence that people from the Wuhan Institute of Virology had antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak, which they would if the disease had slipped controls in the laboratory.
...
the Wall Street Journal published an explosive piece saying that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology attended hospital with flu-like symptoms in November 2019.

Sounds like a clear evidence that COVID-19 emerged from a lab leak!

Except, in China the majority of primary care services are provided from hospitals, which includes things like sick certificates for people who miss a day of work due to a cold. In other words, three people going to a hospital for care might literally be what you'd expect of a normal flu season and have no nefarious connotations at all."

 

[Agema]

I'm going to grade these out 5:

the authors blame "foul play and political considerations" for the fact that they were rejected from both Science and Nature*.

The authors claim that their argument provides sufficient evidence to "reverse the burden of proof"

In fact, the paper doesn't even claim to demonstrate that COVID-19 was created in a lab, it just posits the theory and then says that others should disprove this theory because it is so "parsimonious".

 

[Silvanus]

There is more proof death numbers weren't tampered with than Covid-19 not having come from a lab lol.

Really! You have positive proof?

Not just reasons to disbelieve Rebekah Jones; not reasons she's untrustworthy, or reasons we shouldn't believe her. Positive proof? That's exactly what I was waiting for in the other thread, but which nobody provided!

This is meaningless. The guy didn't invent this shit, he reported on other people's findings. And he's hardly the only one.

Hrmm... there's a bit more to it than that. Michael Gordon was the first major American correspondent to report Iraq was developing WMDs. He had a unique position as the only reporter embedded with the land troops in Iraq from the start. He was directly cited by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell, and the NYT apologised specifically for the story he wrote.

He's a bit more than one among many. He's perhaps the most major name associated with the story in American journalism/ reporting.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This maybe a revelation to you, but its not CNN's job to determine if COVID-19 was born of circumstance or deliberate laboratory meddling. In a case like this that job is likely going to fall under a combination of independent scientists from WHO and very likely operatives of agencies like the CIA and SIS. Now if CNN ignored that as a potential story angle, well, that's their loss and/or oversight.

Looks like you didn't watch the video because the person (Nicholas Wade) saying that the lab theory was not allowed is not affiliated with CNN and he was criticizing places like The Lancet. And Facebook banned posts as well. Youtube removed a video of a roundtable discussion with experts and Gov. Desantis just because it didn't go along with the "narrative". How are you gonna claim this is how things are supposed to be?

Look how fucked up this is...
"It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”"

The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isn’t this more widely known? As is now obvious, there are many people who have reason not to talk about it.

thebulletin.org

 

[Gordon_4]

Looks like you didn't watch the video because the person (Nicholas Wade) saying that the lab theory was not allowed is not affiliated with CNN and he was criticizing places like The Lancet. And Facebook banned posts as well. Youtube removed a video of a roundtable discussion with experts and Gov. Desantis just because it didn't go along with the "narrative". How are you gonna claim this is how things are supposed to be?

Look how fucked up this is...
"It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”"

The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isn’t this more widely known? As is now obvious, there are many people who have reason not to talk about it.

thebulletin.org

I’d say it’s a damn good thing I don’t look to YouTube or Facebook for my fucking news because I trust them about as far as I could throw the data centre housing all their meme content. As for CNN not reporting on it, well, that’s their business and their own stupid fault and they’re gonna look like idiots. As they should.

And for conflicts of interest, again, not something I’m going to dogpile on because quite frankly American institutions and honestly loads of their consumers have demonstrated to me a really poor grasp of how that kind of probity works and there’s only so much piss and vinegar I can conjure up for other nations’ fuck ups. My own country has enough to be going on with for me to be outraged about.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I’d say it’s a damn good thing I don’t look to YouTube or Facebook for my fucking news because I trust them about as far as I could throw the data centre housing all their meme content. As for CNN not reporting on it, well, that’s their business and their own stupid fault and they’re gonna look like idiots. As they should.

And for conflicts of interest, again, not something I’m going to dogpile on because quite frankly American institutions and honestly loads of their consumers have demonstrated to me a really poor grasp of how that kind of probity works and there’s only so much piss and vinegar I can conjure up for other nations’ fuck ups. My own country has enough to be going on with for me to be outraged about.

Again, it's not really about CNN (just because the video is a CNN video doesn't make it about CNN), it's about SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS not reporting on it just because of politics. And places like Facebook and Youtube banning discussion on social media platforms is more ways to control information and discussion. Youtube removed a video because doctors (extremely well respected doctors) said that kids don't need to wear masks because of actual science reasons. Doctors and scientists are either getting "cancelled" or they are too afraid to speak of with their scientific opinions. Scientific consensus is no longer actual consensus. You get banned from tons of different sites like aforementioned sites or reddit or some rather small site for posting legit science. If you don't see that extreme problem with this kind of censoring of information, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Really! You have positive proof?

Not just reasons to disbelieve Rebekah Jones; not reasons she's untrustworthy, or reasons we shouldn't believe her. Positive proof? That's exactly what I was waiting for in the other thread, but which nobody provided!

So where's the positive proof she was asked to delete or modify data?

Her complaint doesn't contain it.

 

[Gordon_4]

Again, it's not really about CNN (just because the video is a CNN video doesn't make it about CNN), it's about SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS not reporting on it just because of politics. And places like Facebook and Youtube banning discussion on social media platforms is more ways to control information and discussion. Youtube removed a video because doctors (extremely well respected doctors) said that kids don't need to wear masks because of actual science reasons. Doctors and scientists are either getting "cancelled" or they are too afraid to speak of with their scientific opinions. Scientific consensus is no longer actual consensus. You get banned from tons of different sites like aforementioned sites or reddit or some rather small site for posting legit science. If you don't see that extreme problem with this kind of censoring of information, then I don't know what to tell you.

Facebook and YouTube are not in my view platforms for any kind of scientific output because they are by nature social platforms and ill-equipped to vet that kind of information. Plus as for being banned for posting “legit science”, well, might be time to start looking at regulating social media and taking away its right to police it’s own content.

 

[Satinavian]

Again, it's not really about CNN (just because the video is a CNN video doesn't make it about CNN), it's about SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS not reporting on it just because of politics. And places like Facebook and Youtube banning discussion on social media platforms is more ways to control information and discussion. Youtube removed a video because doctors (extremely well respected doctors) said that kids don't need to wear masks because of actual science reasons. Doctors and scientists are either getting "cancelled" or they are too afraid to speak of with their scientific opinions. Scientific consensus is no longer actual consensus. You get banned from tons of different sites like aforementioned sites or reddit or some rather small site for posting legit science. If you don't see that extreme problem with this kind of censoring of information, then I don't know what to tell you.

Do you have any idea how scientific publication works ?

We have journals all over the world. Each deciding only on their own what to publish. They all ask various scientists in the corresponding fields about their opinion before they do so, which is called peer-review. Those also sit all over the world and and as none of them does reiewing as main job, that work is quite broadly distributed. Those review scientists don't get money for it and the journals don't have any authority over them.
Additionally we have preprint servers, where you basically can upload any peace you want even before people agree to publish it.

So, either we really have a worldwide superpowerful conspiracy that controlls all of science and is at the same time so secret that no one (including the controlled scientist) know it or ... the only stuff that can't get in any scientific journal (we don't only talk about the really prestigious ones that choose the best from many submissions ) is stuff that is so embarrassing, unscientific and wrong that it would even drag down the reputation of sub-par jpurnals.




Look at history : When has there ever been a case where a scientific discouvery was successfully suppressed by organized science ? Before suppression always came from gouvernments or vested interest or whoever controlled most of the mdia, but nothing ever was successfully suppressed in the scientific journals internationally.


So it would theoretically be possible for youtube, facebook and CNN to try to ban things unfairly. But if they did, you would have organized science complain about it. And it wouldn't matter that much because the scientific discourse would continue uniterrupted in journals anyway.

 

[Seanchaidh]

This is meaningless. The guy didn't invent this shit, he reported on other people's findings. And he's hardly the only one.

Centrist liberals in the United States are warming to the lab leak theory for the same reason that Trump liked it: it distracts from the inadequacy of the US government's response.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Do you have any idea how scientific publication works ?

We have journals all over the world. Each deciding only on their own what to publish. They all ask various scientists in the corresponding fields about their opinion before they do so, which is called peer-review. Those also sit all over the world and and as none of them does reiewing as main job, that work is quite broadly distributed. Those review scientists don't get money for it and the journals don't have any authority over them.
Additionally we have preprint servers, where you basically can upload any peace you want even before people agree to publish it.

So, either we really have a worldwide superpowerful conspiracy that controlls all of science and is at the same time so secret that no one (including the controlled scientist) know it or ... the only stuff that can't get in any scientific journal (we don't only talk about the really prestigious ones that choose the best from many submissions ) is stuff that is so embarrassing, unscientific and wrong that it would even drag down the reputation of sub-par jpurnals.




Look at history : When has there ever been a case where a scientific discouvery was successfully suppressed by organized science ? Before suppression always came from gouvernments or vested interest or whoever controlled most of the mdia, but nothing ever was successfully suppressed in the scientific journals internationally.


So it would theoretically be possible for youtube, facebook and CNN to try to ban things unfairly. But if they did, you would have organized science complain about it. And it wouldn't matter that much because the scientific discourse would continue uniterrupted in journals anyway.

Many journals have owners.

Peer review generally is more to check the accuracy of the pieces not if the journal should publish or not.

Some places who literally own journals have a habit of sorts of milking Chinese students for fees etc

I wonder if some journals therefore had incentive not to publish?

People like to think of Science as incorruptible by political sway. It's a same reality doesn't play that out especially in the USA where you funding can be pulled because an angry mob went after the companies helping fund the research telling them how evil you are or something.

 

[Silvanus]

So where's the positive proof she was asked to delete or modify data?

Her complaint doesn't contain it.

There isn't any. We don't have any reason to believe her. As I've said at least 5 times now.

But you said proof they weren't tampered. Where is it?

 

[Agema]

Looks like you didn't watch the video because the person (Nicholas Wade)...

This wouldn't be the same Nicholas Wade who a few years ago published a book that hopelessly misrepresented a load of genetic science and invened a theory that argued that some races were less successful than others because of their genes, would it? And when challenged by over 100 scientists that he had misrepresented their work, told them they were a bunch of politically correct cowards who didn't have the guts to tell the truth?

Again, it's not really about CNN (just because the video is a CNN video doesn't make it about CNN), it's about SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS not reporting on it just because of politics.

Scientific publications happily report appropriate scientific findings and debate.

What they do not feel the need to report is half-arsed bollocks from self-aggrandising arseholes, who then run away to social media and whine that there's a conspiracy against them because journal editors and peer reviewers didn't think their work was up to scratch. Assuming the work has any merit at all, they just need to do what scientists always do, and aim for publication in a lower prestige journal.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Facebook and YouTube are not in my view platforms for any kind of scientific output because they are by nature social platforms and ill-equipped to vet that kind of information. Plus as for being banned for posting “legit science”, well, might be time to start looking at regulating social media and taking away its right to police it’s own content.

Again, the main beef is the scientific publications ignoring because of politics. Social media is just another avenue to control the narrative. Also, many of these journals are censoring information behind paywalls that is public information. A lot of studies are funded with tax dollars yet are only free to view for like a week and get paywalled after that.

Do you have any idea how scientific publication works ?

We have journals all over the world. Each deciding only on their own what to publish. They all ask various scientists in the corresponding fields about their opinion before they do so, which is called peer-review. Those also sit all over the world and and as none of them does reiewing as main job, that work is quite broadly distributed. Those review scientists don't get money for it and the journals don't have any authority over them.
Additionally we have preprint servers, where you basically can upload any peace you want even before people agree to publish it.

So, either we really have a worldwide superpowerful conspiracy that controlls all of science and is at the same time so secret that no one (including the controlled scientist) know it or ... the only stuff that can't get in any scientific journal (we don't only talk about the really prestigious ones that choose the best from many submissions ) is stuff that is so embarrassing, unscientific and wrong that it would even drag down the reputation of sub-par jpurnals.

Look at history : When has there ever been a case where a scientific discouvery was successfully suppressed by organized science ? Before suppression always came from gouvernments or vested interest or whoever controlled most of the mdia, but nothing ever was successfully suppressed in the scientific journals internationally.

So it would theoretically be possible for youtube, facebook and CNN to try to ban things unfairly. But if they did, you would have organized science complain about it. And it wouldn't matter that much because the scientific discourse would continue uniterrupted in journals anyway.

Completely silencing all nonconforming information is not needed to control the narrative. I bet a lot of people thought the virus leaking from the lab was basically impossible by how it was reported, by how the big journals ignored it, and how social media banned it. I bet the average person would think if Facebook banned such and such information, it's probably "earth is flat" level bullshit. But it wasn't bullshit in the least when the CDC director actually believes it was the most likely explanation. Doctors are afraid to speak up about many things because they don't want to go against the stance of their institution for obvious reasons. And when saying something that really shouldn't be very controversial in the least like "kids don't need masks" gets you cancelled, what doctor that isn't basically set-for-life is gonna come forward with something that is actually controversial?

This wouldn't be the same Nicholas Wade who a few years ago published a book that hopelessly misrepresented a load of genetic science and invened a theory that argued that some races were less successful than others because of their genes, would it? And when challenged by over 100 scientists that he had misrepresented their work, told them they were a bunch of politically correct cowards who didn't have the guts to tell the truth?

Scientific publications happily report appropriate scientific findings and debate.

What they do not feel the need to report is half-arsed bollocks from self-aggrandising arseholes, who then run away to social media and whine that there's a conspiracy against them because journal editors and peer reviewers didn't think their work was up to scratch. Assuming the work has any merit at all, they just need to do what scientists always do, and aim for publication in a lower prestige journal.

So attacking the person instead of the actual argument and facts on the matter being argued. Science isn't not being argued so him misinterpreting science from before is a valid reason to throw out this when it isn't about interpreting science?

Again:
"It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”"

 

[Buyetyen]

Again, the main beef is the scientific publications ignoring because of politics.

No, you assume that's what they're doing. You've done a shitty job of proving it because your logic is circular.

I've said this before, but it apparently didn't take the previous time: It's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, you assume that's what they're doing. You've done a shitty job of proving it because your logic is circular.

I've said this before, but it apparently didn't take the previous time: It's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right.

"It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”"