|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: COVID vaccine works - we're saved! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
The longer we go without finding the natural origin the more likely some other origin becomes.
I actually think you have that backwards. The longer we go without finding credible evidence for the lab leak hypothesis, the more likely that the natural origin is the correct one. Tracking down the natural origin is notoriously difficult, in comparison with finding evidence of malfeasance.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: quote: It’s not about judging a book by it’s cover it’s simply a concern that the choice of venue indicates that the article might not have had sufficient review. Judging an article based on where it appears is judging the book by its cover.
quote: Wrong again. It’s that we can’t consider him a reliable authority. What should he be considered then?
Really? This is what the scientists said:
As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not. Presenting an “incomplete and inaccurate account” is more than simply speculating beyond the evidence. 139 scientists signed that letter and another 4 added their names after publication. This was quoted in the Wikipedia article I referenced. It's what I was responding to when I said they reacted with moral repugnance first and found things to criticize later. It's perfectly understandable that scientists would want to distance themselves as far as possible from any potential racist implications of their work.
quote: The only thing that makes the furin cleavage special is that it increases infectivity in humans - but we’re only looking at this virus because it is highly infectious in humans. So an unusual but known feature - with a plausible natural origin - isn’t exactly strong evidence. Surely we’d expect something of the sort. So you're balancing a "plausible natural origin" with not "exactly strong evidence." That's fine, but I don't see how there's enough there to decide between them.
quote: I’ve explained about the furin cleavage above, and I’ve pointed out that we don’t have a strong expectation of finding the natural source. But apparently you won’t explain why you think that the evidence makes a lab release as likely as a natural origin. I never said anything like that. If you reread my Message 83, I only said that Wade's article helped me understand why the engineering possibility is suddenly receiving increased attention. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
nwr writes: The longer we go without finding credible evidence for the lab leak hypothesis, the more likely that the natural origin is the correct one. I wasn't talking about the lab leak hypothesis but the engineered hypothesis. Both the engineered and natural options have only circumstantial evidence right now. Realize the engineered hypothesis was starting from "almost completely dismissed" status. I wasn't saying that it was becoming more likely than the natural hypothesis, only more likely than it was.
Tracking down the natural origin is notoriously difficult, in comparison with finding evidence of malfeasance. I think what can more accurately be characterized as "notoriously difficult" is getting to the bottom of something that happened in China that they don't want to get blamed for. I'm not sure what you mean by "tracking down the natural origin," but finding at least some evidence of a natural origin is not "notoriously difficult." It's been nothing but dead ends so far. But I'm not advocating the engineered hypothesis. I offered the Wade article as explaining why the engineered hypothesis is suddenly receiving increased attention. --Ted
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It isn’t and I’m not judging it on that, simply noting that it likely hasn’t had the checks that it would receive before publication in a more appropriate peer-reviewed journal.
quote: A journalist - which he is - with a record of misreporting science.
quote: You’re asserting that he did not misrepresent their work? That the letter is untrue in that respect? That’s a pretty serious accusation to throw at the signatories to the letter.
quote: There are plenty of unknown viruses out there, all mutating all the time. There are much fewer engineered viruses, and those are handled in controlled conditions. If there isn’t good evidence to support the lab release hypothesis we must prefer the natural origin. It’s inherently more probable.
quote: In fact you did say “something like that” in Message 86 The possibility that the 12-nucleotide insertion appeared naturally cannot be excluded (and Wade says this) but neither can it be considered more likely than engineering, Now will you explain what evidence is strong enough to raise the inherently improbable lab release hypothesis to the same level as natural origin ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: quote: It isn’t and I’m not judging it on that, simply noting that it likely hasn’t had the checks that it would receive before publication in a more appropriate peer-reviewed journal. It's not research and does not belong in a peer-reviewed journal. It's a magazine article in a magazine. Read Write for the Bulletin - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to get a better idea of what it is and of their editorial policies.
quote: A journalist - which he is - with a record of misreporting science. Well of course he's a journalist. I said as much when I mentioned he'd worked at Nature, Science and The New York Times. Did you misinterpret mentioning his employment at Nature and Science as a claim that he was a scientist? If you've read those journals then you know they have many layperson level magazine articles in the beginning about the technical papers that appear later. I assume he worked on the magazine articles. And you're poisoning the well again. Make your objections to what he says not to the supposed wrongs you're convinced he committed.
quote: You’re asserting that he did not misrepresent their work? That the letter is untrue in that respect? That’s a pretty serious accusation to throw at the signatories to the letter. I'm asserting that there's no way to know whether he misrepresented their work because the scientists statement is very open to suspicion that it was motivated by a desire to distance their research from association with racism as far as possible. But you're still playing "poisoning the well."
quote: There are plenty of unknown viruses out there, all mutating all the time. There are much fewer engineered viruses, and those are handled in controlled conditions. If there isn’t good evidence to support the lab release hypothesis we must prefer the natural origin. It’s inherently more probable. I didn't believe the claim when first made last year that lab release was nearly impossible. Claims that people and their devices and processes are nearly perfect are invariably wrong. Wade lists a number of lab escape episodes, and who knows how many times viruses have escaped from labs undetected because no known harm resulted. But I'm not arguing for the "lab release hypothesis." I'm pointing to an article that explains why the the engineered hypothesis is currently receiving increased attention.
quote: In fact you did say “something like that” in Message 86 You do say.
The possibility that the 12-nucleotide insertion appeared naturally cannot be excluded (and Wade says this) but neither can it be considered more likely than engineering, Now will you explain what evidence is strong enough to raise the inherently improbable lab release hypothesis to the same level as natural origin ? Again, I'm not interested in the lab release hypothesis. I already believe it more likely than managers of such labs want us to believe. I'm interested in the engineered hypothesis, and Wade's article explains why it is not "inherently improbable." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which means that it isn’t something to place great reliance on.
quote: So you think that being a journalist makes him an expert. That explains part of the problem.
quote: Pointing out reasons why we shouldn’t take Wade’s word for it is not poisoning the well. Can we just agree that Wade’s opinions should not be considered persuasive in themselves? That his arguments require evaluation.
quote: Just as that statement is open to the suspicion that you are defending Wade here because you support his racist views.
quote: Until your argument gets beyond “Wade says so” pointing out that Wade is not an especially reliable source is a valid reply. Yet I’m the one addressing Wade’s arguments, not you.
quote: So you have a high profile article, but not much solid argument.
quote: In fact he doesn’t give any valid reasons to consider the “engineered” hypothesis as likely as a natural origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: quote: Which means that it isn’t something to place great reliance on. You're arguing that science writers are unreliable communicators.
quote: So you think that being a journalist makes him an expert. That explains part of the problem. I think Wade is a top-notch science writer.
quote: Pointing out reasons why we shouldn’t take Wade’s word for it is not poisoning the well. Except that your reasons are unrelated to what Wade says in the article.
Can we just agree that Wade’s opinions should not be considered persuasive in themselves? That his arguments require evaluation. Of course. I think you misunderstand why I posted a message about Wade's article. I consider it an explanation for why the engineered hypothesis is now receiving increased attention. I don't consider it a conclusive argument for the engineered hypothesis, nor, as you'll find if you actually read the article, does Wade.
quote: Just as that statement is open to the suspicion that you are defending Wade here because you support his racist views. If you're the kind of person who goes there, go for it. My actual position is that no one on either side of the race/intelligence argument has scientific data to back them up. There are too many confounding factors.
quote: Until your argument gets beyond “Wade says so” pointing out that Wade is not an especially reliable source is a valid reply. You're again making the mistake of thinking I'm advocating for the engineered hypothesis. I'm not. I've reached no conclusions. And I've never said anything that could be interpreted as "Wade says so." But if you're going to make obviously untrue statements such as that Wade is an unreliable source then I'll of course argue the point.
Yet I’m the one addressing Wade’s arguments, not you. If you do say so yourself.
quote: So you have a high profile article, but not much solid argument. The only arguments I'm making are against your baseless opinions, such as that lab escape is inherently improbable. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for lab escape, just that I think you're wrong to characterize it that way.
quote: In fact he doesn’t give any valid reasons to consider the “engineered” hypothesis as likely as a natural origin. You're welcome to that opinion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: They often are, but that isn’t my point. The point is that he’s it an expert and his personal opinions - which is what he’s offering - shouldn’t be accepted as anything more than the personal opinions of someone who isn’t an expert.
quote: Which still doesn’t make him an expert.
quote: And they don’t have to be. You obviously have a lot invested insetting up Wade as an authority but he simply isn’t in this matter. Let us also remember that I did address his arguments.
quote: No, you go further than that. You take the article as putting the engineered hypothesis on at least a rough par with the natural origin hypothesis, but the evidence is pretty weak and it really needs to be better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: quote: They often are, but that isn’t my point. The point is that he isn't an expert and his personal opinions - which is what he’s offering - shouldn’t be accepted as anything more than the personal opinions of someone who isn’t an expert. You're mischaracterizing Wade's article. He's distilling information from the scientific community.
quote: Which still doesn’t make him an expert. Much of our information about the current state of research comes to us through science writers. It is nice when scientists themselves write for laypeople.
quote: And they don’t have to be. You obviously have a lot invested in setting up Wade as an authority but he simply isn’t in this matter. I really have nothing invested in this. I'm at a loss to understand why you've gone off the deep end about Wade. He explained why the engineered hypothesis is getting increased attention. That's it.
Let us also remember that I did address his arguments. You really didn't. You said a little about the furin cleavage, which I rebutted, but other than that you've just been derogatory.
quote: No, you go further than that. No, I don't.
You take the article as putting the engineered hypothesis on at least a rough par with the natural origin hypothesis, but the evidence is pretty weak and it really needs to be better. None of this is true, either. I have said, and will now say again, I don't have an opinion about which is more likely. You're misinterpreting my objections to your inexplicable attacks on Wade the science writer as advocacy for the engineered hypothesis. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Is he? It doesn’t look that way to me. Which scientists claim that the furin cleavage is evidence of engineering? Is it a consensus view? What about the scientists who disagree?
quote: And I’ve always said that reading the original paper is better than trusting the science writers.
quote: It is your defence of Wade that has “gone of the deep end”. That’s how I can tell that you are deeply invested.
quote: This are contradictory claims. By default the natural origin is more likely by far, for reasons I’ve explained. Indeed, it seems too me that you really want support for the engineered hypothesis which is why you are so determined to defend Wade as an authority (to the point of attacking justified criticism). Certainly you have done nothing to defend his arguments. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: quote:Is he? It doesn’t look that way to me. It's fine with me if you have a different opinion. I only find fault with the way you deal with information or opinions you disagree with, by attacking the person.
Which scientists claim that the furin cleavage is evidence of engineering? Is it a consensus view? What about the scientists who disagree? You're either mischaracterizing or misconstruing the situation. No one is claiming the scientific community is divided into opposing camps of engineered versus natural origins. The actual situation is that more voices within the scientific community are coming forward in favor of a closer look at the engineered possibility.
quote: And I’ve always said that reading the original paper is better than trusting the science writers. If one's competent in the field, sure. But most people are only competent in a limited number of scientific fields, if any. As they say, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and no one's better at misinterpreting a technical paper than someone with a little but not enough knowledge.
quote: It is your defence of Wade that has “gone of the deep end”. That’s how I can tell that you are deeply invested. Pointing out that someone's attacks are unmerited or in error is something I'd do for anyone. If you claimed Hitler had a peg leg I'd say that Hitler did not have a peg leg, and if recent history is any guide you'd accuse me of defending Hitler, and if I persisted in his defense of being deeply invested in defending Hitler. But of course your accusations wouldn't be true. It's just your MO of attacking whoever you disagree with using made up accusations instead of discussing the evidence and merits behind the ideas.
quote: These are contradictory claims. What are contradictory claims? You didn't quote enough to tell what "none" refers to. Going back to your Message 98, here's what you said that I was responding to:
PaulK from Message 98 writes: You take the article as putting the engineered hypothesis on at least a rough par with the natural origin hypothesis, but the evidence is pretty weak and it really needs to be better. Reading this again I still arrive at the same assessment: none of this is true. I don't think either hypothesis should be considered more likely at this point, but that more study should be done. The evidence for the engineered hypothesis is not "pretty weak" and is more than sufficient to justify a desire for more study and for more information from the Wuhan lab.
By default the natural origin is more likely by far, for reasons I’ve explained. If you favor the natural origin hypothesis then that's fine. So did I until recently. I'm now keeping an open mind until we have more information.
Indeed, it seems too me that you really want support for the engineered hypothesis which is why you are so determined to defend Wade as an authority (to the point of attacking justified criticism). Certainly you have done nothing to defend his arguments. You do say. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Your problem is that I refuse to accept Wade as an expert, and dare to believe 143 scientists who say that Wade misrepresented the science. It certainly isn’t that I refuse to discuss his arguments - because I did. You are the one who won’t do that.
quote: No, I asked if Wade was really simply relaying the science or if it was his opinions. So I will ask again. Is it scientists who claim that the furin cleavage is adequate evidence of engineering or is that Wade’s opinion? And if it is scientists, who and where?
quote: Which includes science writers.
quote: The contradiction is still there. Without evidence the natural hypothesis is more likely tha the engineered hypothesis.
quote: And it’s true. You claim that it is unreasonable to believe tha 143 scientists, just because the brief letter did not detail the criticisms and because you suspect that they were just saying that to hide the racist implications of their work (which is the standard racist excuse). You didn’t even do even a minimal investigation - the criticisms aren’t secret and you could easily find at least some It’s pretty clear who is being unreasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Thanks for your input.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Here's is some additional information for why the engineered hypothesis is recently receiving increasing attention. There have also been developments in favor of the natural origin hypothesis, but the purpose of this post is to make clear why the engineered hypothesis is no longer being dismissed. Much of this is take from Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible, but a couple are my own insertions:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Covid vaccine: First 'milestone' vaccine offers 90% protection 90% protection of what?
But wait, was it all those prayers? Before 2019 it was widely known that vaccines that don't kill the virus can make it mutate into stronger variants. Since vaccinated people can still carry and transmit the virus, I would say this is most likely true. So what does the vaccine actually solve? In the long run more people may die. We are being told to vaccinate to "stop the virus" ~Dr.FauciThis seems to be a lie. Sounds like a money making machine to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024