zlacker

[return to "Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research"]
1. tikima+t42[view] [source] 2021-09-25 11:53:08
>>BellLa+(OP)
Guys, two points here. One, this proposal was rejected. This did not happen! Two, their proposal was for genetic manipulation of an existing virus, which research on the existing corona virus shows was not the case.

This has nothing to do with the corona virus strains we are currently dealing with, and more importantly, there has never been any credible research proving that Covid was made in a lab. The only paper that got any traction suggested it was non-manipulation based gain of function research, but that was disproved only a few weeks after the paper's release as well. I know we all want to know where it came from, but the odds against us ever having actual evidence of it being from a lab are virtually zero. And no, rejected research proposals do not constitute proof of anything.

◧◩
2. resoni+S92[view] [source] 2021-09-25 12:46:48
>>tikima+t42
This novel virus started spreading pretty close to a lab that studies viruses. I think that counts as "actual evidence" that it came out of a lab. Of course, evidence != proof. And even if it did come from the lab, that in itself does not imply malice.
◧◩◪
3. beowul+kb2[view] [source] 2021-09-25 12:59:31
>>resoni+S92
That is not evidence! It is at best a coincidence. An even stronger coincidence would be that this lab had a genotypically similar virus stored prior to its detection. But even that is not evidence of release; it is just a stronger hypothesis.

If I was near a bank robbery at the time of occurrence, it does not count as evidence that I did it. Not even if I have a history of robbing banks. It must be combined with other, stronger evidence (I was inside the bank, my fingerprints were there, I was caught on camera) to build a case.

◧◩◪◨
4. resoni+Aw3[view] [source] 2021-09-26 02:39:04
>>beowul+kb2
At best a coincidence and at worst what? Evidence? I think being near or at a bank at the time it was robbed totally does count as evidence that you may have done it. Forgive me for pointing out little details in your post, but

> It must be combined with other, stronger evidence ...

This sounds like you agree. It's just weak evidence, and that's for darn sure.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. beowul+P04[view] [source] 2021-09-26 10:54:00
>>resoni+Aw3
I don’t agree that the virus appearing near a lab is evidence that it was released from a lab, no. Just like I don’t believe being near a bank robbery at the time of a robbery is evidence I did it.

The comment mentioning Bayes Theorem has the right idea. Your priors are exceptionally different from my own, so we do not see this the same way and maybe never will.

[go to top]