@Ticklicker56 Good to know if there was an outbreak in Utrecht that people would think that was a lab leak, too.
English
insideNIAID
288 posts
I'm actually unsure if the FCS manipulation described in the 2015 paper👆was performed at the Wuhan lab since the lead author is listed as representing both labs, & since this research effort was supported by a grant from NSF of China (but only "provided to" co-author Qigai He).
English
In pursuing info about recombination in CoV, I found 2 papers resulting from collaboration betw virologists at Utrecht Univ (Netherlands) & virus researchers in China;
in 2013 (👇) they used 'reverse engineering' to alter genome of PEDV (an AlphaCoV that infects pigs), &...
1/3
English
@hkakeya No, I am implying that YOU are willfully pushing a conspiracy agenda based on crafted lies and half truths.
Care to respond to the underlying fundamentals I mentioned? Virology isn't engineering.
English
FCSのことですか？FCSはSARS-CoV-2以外のサルベコウイルスでは1つも見つかっていません。ゆえにウイルス学者のRobert Garryも「自然にこの挿入が起きたとは考えらない」と書いたわけです。素人議論を脱するため、一度ウイルス学会に参加されてはどうですか？彼らの本音が聞けて、勉強になりますよ。
エフ@ninja_impreza_
@GiggaMAGA @Jimo0404 ご指摘ありがとうございます。 論文でも人工と断言はできず、自然由来としては稀な配列とされる程度です。 『誰もが知っているとおり』という表現は根拠になりません。具体的な科学的根拠をお示しください。
日本語
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb More plausible than COVID-19 starting in a lab.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb You could so easily dispel the online rumor I've started that you're an anonymous online commentator w an affiliation explaining your extreme bias on full display. Is there a reason you can't give your real identity. Is it plausible you're just a regular guy w no origin agenda?
English
Consistently agnostic on origin, I've not found any compelling reason to move off the fence. Ive clearly expressed I think the data can &s/b assessed, &w all avail information considered, the case is clearly unsolved &indeterminable. Numerous experts &authorities see it this way.
Rune Stava@StavaRune
@MJnanostretch @ban_epp_gofroc @DrSagvolden @tgof137 @dkupiecki You’re not in sync with SAGO. Framing this as if the data can’t be assessed is rhetoric. SAGO assess the published evidence and say it leans toward zoonosis, while key data needed to assess a lab origin hasn’t been made available. You’ve got it backwards.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb It’s not a charge! You said you think there’s a conspiracy out to get you.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb What makes you think you're a convincing uninterested anonymous online commentator randomly going about his business only cheerleading one side of the origin debate &poo-pooing the other? &Instead of simply revealing who he is comes back w a conspiracy charge against the asker.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb Give me your name and affiliation and then I wouldn't have to guess. Or at least what you do for a living & why you're here. Whatever you decide, you both fascinate and amuse me.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb Cuz you said we’re acting on behalf of some sort of conspiracy…
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb You bring up conspiracy... why. Are you saying you are not anonymous online commentators clearly on one side of the debate??
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb Why’s it always gotta be a conspiracy and not just people disagree with you?
English
@bratwebb @insideNIAID Also, my guess would be the 3 anonymous online commentators above have taken up defending &prosecuting for a non-research origin because they are acting at the interest of others &in this way are conflicted, unreliable sources ie if you're looking for unbiased informed analysis.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb So many that you keep citing people in support who think it’s the most likely origin 👍
English
@bratwebb @insideNIAID I'm a 30yr cell &molecular biologist complaining a lot about Markolin, Miller, Jacobs &types like you- but I doubt you're holding yourselves up as more experienced/expert. My complaints re: W-P authors are well founded as MANY recognized experts are unconvinced by Market theory.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on what I should see.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb Have I smeared &blocked u "insideNIAID"? Have I labeled u "a creepy online rando &useful idiot w zero expertise"? No I give u the same respect I do everyone- yet u should see the horrid names I've been called. &For what? For insisting on standards? U won't even give me your name.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb They also go so low as to smear honest credible scientists who merely want normal rules of scientific integrity& reasonableness applied here.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb Nah; everyone has their own take on language. But none of the people you cite as sane voices agree with you on 50% likelihood.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb &So now you want to tell me the language of SAGO, Eloit, Gao, Lipkin, Baric, Bloom, Relman, US-IC, the French Academy, German Intel is the sane haughty hyperdefensive persuasive smearful rhetoric of Rasmussen, Markolin &Daszak? How have u sunk so low?
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb Here's Baric and Lipkin and we've discussed SAGO. The others you list either never say what they think is more likely or don't explain why, let alone show their work.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb Do you notice any difference betw the language of SAGO, Eloit, Gao, Lipkin, Baric, Bloom, US-IC and the haughty hyperdefensive persuasive rhetoric of Rasmussen, Markolin &Daszak re: the strength of the Market evidence; confidence levels? The former aren't convinced by the later.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb And since you say “the labs” that means you can’t even settle on one lab? If so, you’d think the same thing regardless of where an outbreak started, and “proximity” is no longer relevant.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb Or “the proximal investigation was badly botched” ? What does that mean anyway?
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb The SAGO report you cited as authoritative said otherwise.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb I think you guys are running a rigged game. The evidence holding up the Market theory is wobbly (proximal investigation was badly botched) &in spite of proximity &what viruses were known housed &under study in Wuhan the labs were not properly audited. Those facts matter.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb Thinking the “other side” is honest must perfectly balance the “other side” having zero supporting evidence in your mind for you to end up at 50%.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb I've yet to find a reasonable honest scientifically literate person on your side- you might understand what a disappointment this is- &to think I'm just an agnostic. I thought I found one in Stuart Neil but the controversy has turned him bitter grumpy and completely snowed in.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb Should I be careful of whatever lame retaliation you’re insincerely warning me of or should I post my drivers license so that you know who I am?
Serious mixed messages here.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb So you're not actually inside NIAID and you're not anonymous for fear of being fired? Then who are you (your name &affiliation) &why must you remain anonymous?
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb Again no one said 100% certain. Odd thing to write in the same post as saying you’re not a liar.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb Well I'm not a liar & funny you should accuse me of lying. Yes I truly see SAGO as clearly agnostic on origin, do u know they couldnt find agreement until the hardline extremists quit SAGO in protest. Whereas yes most on your side argue 97-100% certainty &trash LL like it's junk.
English
@MJnanostretch @bratwebb Who said it was 100%? You’re the one lying and saying it supports your 50% position.
English
@insideNIAID @bratwebb You're being just as absurd as all those before you. SAGO in no way is saying it's anywhere close to 100% sure research had no hand in bringing SC2 to us. Origin today requires better investigation. Try 51% or thereabouts. Be careful...I say this because you're not being careful.
English