No, he isn't. I'm referring to his COVID-19 article, not Iraq WMDs.
You fucked up that quote dude. Those are other poster's words that you quoted as mine.
Dr. Fauci “not convinced” coronavirus developed naturally
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
Attacking the person where the person has "prior history" is reasonable. Nicholas Wade (assuming it's the same one) has prior history of making somewhat unsafe claims. The reason I bring this up, is because Wade is making claims that are themselves open to scrutiny. You should not just assume that they are correct.
Wade calls this a conflict of interest. Is it, though?
In order to defend this, Wade sets up a conditional to entice the reader. But with some consideration, it's not a compelling claim.
Daszak has funded some research at the Wuhan Institute. But he knows what it is, and indeed it will be clear from the grant documentation which, being via a public body, will be open to scrutiny. So, he's been getting his colleagues to collect bat coronaviruses. So far, so totally boring. If one of them accidentally escaped the lab, how on earth is he culpable for the fat-fingered incompetence of some tech in an institute he doesn't even work at? He knows what his grant is funding: if he knows it was not funding dodgy manipulations to bat coronaviruses, he is likewise not liable if a manipulated bat coronavirus escapes the lab, because it wasn't done on his grant. And if it was, that's fraud on the part of his Chinese colleagues. And if you want to question whether money should be given to Chinese research institutes, that's ultimately the responsibility of the NIH who oversee grant allocations, and the government who oversee NIH policies.
So, in short, Daszak has no credible legal liability at all, unless he's done something improper / illegal yet to be exposed. And I strongly suggest the Lancet has this position too.
So, in even shorter, this is a smear dressed up as an argument.
Last edited:
This is not proof that you're right. This is one guy. Also, what Agema said. Sorry dude, but you're just not as smart as you think you are. You need to develop some humility and learn when to shut up.
Uh, I don’t know if we should trust these guys. Smells of quackery. If you feel the need to add guys like this to your study so you have people who will back your findings, you’re probably a con artist.
1) I'm not Adamn
2) So the default position should be with lack of evidence now to the claims should be dismissed
Not to be too pedantic but historical info has already disproved part of that Science Focus article. The Scientist in question has a theory about diseases lying dormant until emerging and seems to really wants
to prove it.
It's entirely possible he's right and Covid-19 was found in sewage because the virus comes from bats and some area with sewer systems are like big dark caves.
The study in question is so far pre-peer review and about 2019 sewage from Barcelona which has seen Bat research before
Spanish bat study shines new light on spread of coronavirus
Study of chiropterans on the Balearic Islands helps provide clues about transmission of several diseases to humans
www.theguardian.com
Ah yes research funding you mean like how the joint Polymer funding a PhD student was getting totally didn't fund my undergraduate research project?
Or how the one computational Chemistry researcher I know didn't already have his work on impact of vibrational frequencies one atomic orbitals ready to go and also didn't use that research funding to then fund 2 other projects instead?
Just because funding says it's for something doesn't mean it's actually going there lol. Normally it's all in a good cause to carry on researching stuff but yeh the 5+ different applications under environment research funding for colour changing paint will likely not end up with something being used for environmental protection applications lol.
It's nice in theory to think that in shared lab or probably even lab complex that funding is being spent just on one project but generally due to cost differences and or shared expenses and shared resources grant can end up funding all kinds because it's so rare labs will get a general grant to research what they want and buy equipment and stocks of things.
You'd have a stronger argument he's not culpable by saying the research was probably happening without his knowledge than saying he knew exactly where all the research funding was going.
My undergrad research had a budget of £96 and a cost of £10K-£15K in the end but I think in the end got justified that it was possible the product of mine could be used in other PhD student work (It couldn't but putting the possibility out there justified the cost)
It is a conflict of interest. Just because someone is not liable for something doesn't preclude it from being a conflict of interest. Daszak's name would definitely be tarnished even if it was due to some random lab worker accident.
The fact that the former CDC director considers a lab leak the more likely scenario and Fauci says even man-made is possible basically proves Cage right. There was heavy pressure everywhere to silence the lab theory as much as possible and the fact that it is a legit possibility (even if say just 10% possible) is proof alone. Facebook banned claims for the lab leak theory. Why would Facebook ban something if the scientific community (which includes publications) didn't tell them it's basically bullshit on the level of the earth being flat?
The fact that the former CDC director considers a lab leak the more likely scenario and Fauci says even man-made is possible basically proves Cage right. There was heavy pressure everywhere to silence the lab theory as much as possible and the fact that it is a legit possibility (even if say just 10% possible) is proof alone. Facebook banned claims for the lab leak theory. Why would Facebook ban something if the scientific community (which includes publications) didn't tell them it's basically bullshit on the level of the earth being flat?
Is there context to this? Are these names one should recognise as synonymous with suss bullshit or something?
It’s a thread. The rest of the thread explains why several of the writers are... not particularly trustworthy.
You do not appear to understand. Conflicts of interest are defined in formal guidelines, publicly available and understandable; correspondents are subject to scrutiny by the journals they contribute to. Even the very fact that The Lancet has not apparently demanded a correction or even retraction tells you that it does not consider it a conflict of interest.
Nicholas Wade surely understands this, and yet he's effectively lied to you anyway. I wonder what that means about his reliability and trustworthiness?
"Heavy pressure"? What "pressure" do random scientists like Daszak have, with their letters to academic journals? You know, in the context of people like US President Donald Trump existing and having an opinion? Please let's stop and think about just how incredibly stupid this concept is.
With a lack of evidence, claims should be dismissed, that's right.
The testimony of someone directly involved is evidence, but its hardly definitive, and certainly not enough to be convincing on its own. Worth an investigation for a criminal allegation.
But no reason to believe something =/= proof its not the case.
This is conspiracy theory thinking. Try to do better for fuck's sake. Give me something real to respond to.
It is unfortunately true that science, like any profession, has its fair share of nutters.
I wonder in some cases if some people don't pay low-conscientiousness scientists to write this shit, although I suspect a lot of it is that the cranks find each other over teh interwebz.
Her evidence no longer includes the official complaints about being asked to delete or modify data. So for all we know anymore the official complaint was due undue workloads or being taken advantage of by having others work put on her unfairly.
OK.
This doesn't change the fact that the other thread (and you) indicated there was proof the allegation was false. Not just reason to disbelieve, which we all agree there is. Proof.
Ohhh, I getcha. Then yeah, he's one among many on the present story.
Apologies. Edited.
You'll note I specifically pointed out the strange suspicious actions she'd been taking. Perfectly fine with others reporting the claims but then suddenly mad at one outlet and feeling the need to correct it then.
I don't give a toss about that, though. You also said you had proof. So did the other thread.
That's all I've been saying since the start. I don't understand why you're endlessly disputing it, and then never actually addressing the proof claim at all-- whenever pressed, you just start talking about suspicions or lack of evidence or shadiness or other unrelated stuff.
Last edited: