Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge

[Res Ipsa]

We're always good, Cultellus. Even when we're not.

Here is your claim: "The pandemic was the result of a virus that appears to have been developed and released by a partner of the NIH."

"appears to have been developed and released" is the assertion of a conclusion, even though not a "proven" one. It can be contrasted with "appears not to have been developed and released by" or "appears to have been spread to human from bats through an unidentified as yet vector" or "we don't know yet how it got from bats to humans."

The last time I read up on this, I came out at "we don't know yet how it got from bats to humans." You apparently have reached a different conclusion, which raises the possibility that you've seen some evidence that I haven't. So, I did what any reasonable person would do who was interested in trying to figure out what happened: I asked for evidence.

And, no, I don't think you've even tried to answer that question.

But we're still good.

[Res Ipsa]

Tidied.

[Lem]

...Here is your claim: "The pandemic was the result of a virus that appears to have been developed and released by a partner of the NIH."
"appears to have been developed and released" is the assertion of a conclusion....

So, I did what any reasonable person would do who was interested in trying to figure out what happened: I asked for evidence.

I addressed the assertion of a conclusion with the affirmation that I do not know. Hey..... wait, there, we are on to something. You want a citation of evidence that what I claim, "Is that proven? Depends who you ask." So that is it, you want evidence that someone claims there is proof and someone claims there is not proof? So, all I have to do to satisfy this crap request of yours, is to say that someone pretends to have proof of something and someone else claims there is no proof? Or, do I need evidence that someone claims that they have proof and someone else claims to have proof of the opposite conclusion?

Either way, I ain't playing fetch. I already know that I do not have original information and that depending on who I ask, I may get a different answer...

Wow. That was a work of art. I don't think I have ever seen a more convoluted way to say, 'no, I don't have anything to back up the definitive statement that I made.'

[Lem]

I addressed the assertion of a conclusion with the affirmation that I do not know. Hey..... wait, there, we are on to something. You want a citation of evidence that what I claim, "Is that proven? Depends who you ask." So that is it, you want evidence that someone claims there is proof and someone claims there is not proof? So, all I have to do to satisfy this crap request of yours, is to say that someone pretends to have proof of something and someone else claims there is no proof? Or, do I need evidence that someone claims that they have proof and someone else claims to have proof of the opposite conclusion?

Either way, I ain't playing fetch. I already know that I do not have original information and that depending on who I ask, I may get a different answer...

Wow. That was a work of art. I don't think I have ever seen a more convoluted way to say, 'no, I don't have anything to back up the definitive statement that I made.'

Typical horse crap.

Well, yes, of course. But I wasn't going to use such a rude word about your post, so thank you for stepping in and making it clear.

[Lem]

Well, yes, of course. But I wasn't going to use such a rude word about your post, so thank you for stepping in and making it clear.

I just realized that you said that what I said was about my post and not about your post. You turned it around. I just saw that. This reminds me of children saying, "I know you are but what am I?" Ya know how kids do? Know what I am talking about?

Oh gosh.

Nice attempt at deflection. you really just cannot answer a question, can you? Or give sources for your definitive statements.

[Res Ipsa]

Styles of argumentation aside, I think it’s an interesting and important issue to get a handle on. It took, what, a decade to find the intermediate hosts for SARS and MERS? So I don’t expect a definitive answer any time soon.

But, we should be able to answer any question of whether the NIH funded the creation of COVID-19 with the currently existing evidence. We can sequence the RNA of the virus to the point that we can track it’s spread through a population. So, we should be able to sequence the viruses used in the research, both in their wild forms and with any mutations induced by the researchers. Then, we can look at how close they match the original strain of COVID-19.

There is a separate area concerning transparency. I think I get the competing concerns involved. We want the NIH to fund research that will help us understand how animal viruses migrate into humans and the conditions that increase the risk of that migration. At the same time, we don’t want the NIH to fund the creation of bio weapons, especially research done in hostile foreign countries. The problem is that both involve inducing changes in the viruses’ genomes. So, there’s a bunch of technical line drawing. And there was supposed to have been some transparency in the process.

But I think there’s pretty good evidence that the process in practice has significantly deviated from the process on paper. That should be addressed regardless of where SARS-COVI-2 came from.

I also agree with Cultellus that suits will be filed. That’sa pretty safe bet. Whether they even get to the discovery stage is another matter. That’s just something we’ll have to wait and see on.

[Lem]

Styles of argumentation aside, I think it’s an interesting and important issue to get a handle on. It took, what, a decade to find the intermediate hosts for SARS and MERS? So I don’t expect a definitive answer any time soon.

But, we should be able to answer any question of whether the NIH funded the creation of COVID-19 with the currently existing evidence. We can sequence the RNA of the virus to the point that we can track it’s spread through a population. So, we should be able to sequence the viruses used in the research, both in their wild forms and with any mutations induced by the researchers. Then, we can look at how close they match the original strain of COVID-19.

There is a separate area concerning transparency. I think I get the competing concerns involved. We want the NIH to fund research that will help us understand how animal viruses migrate into humans and the conditions that increase the risk of that migration. At the same time, we don’t want the NIH to fund the creation of bio weapons, especially research done in hostile foreign countries. The problem is that both involve inducing changes in the viruses’ genomes. So, there’s a bunch of technical line drawing. And there was supposed to have been some transparency in the process.

But I think there’s pretty good evidence that the process in practice has significantly deviated from the process on paper. That should be addressed regardless of where SARS-COVI-2 came from.

I also agree with Cultellus that suits will be filed. That’sa pretty safe bet. Whether they even get to the discovery stage is another matter. That’s just something we’ll have to wait and see on.

YES!

Tidy as ever. Well said. Thanks. Nicely written and argued.

He let you off the hook. You owe him a bigger thank you than that.

[Lem]

He let you off the hook. You owe him a bigger thank you than that.

Jesus, Lem. I do not owe him anything. I thanked him. Go back to class. There was no hook and this is not a catch and release situation, despite what you think.

of course.

No. I have no fear of facts and evidence. None whatsoever. I am not dodging. Are you afraid to grapple with the idea that getting to the truth could be affected by who one asks? If, for example, my source were I to play your fetch/reject game were not to your liking, would that matter? If you were to play the fetcher role here, and find the information and sources, would it matter who you asked?

Any evaluation of evidence necessarily includes evaluation of the source of the evidence. I’m not sure why you think I would be afraid of that.

I don’t understand your aversion to presenting evidence that backs up a claim you make.

[Lem]

of course.

I appreciate this post more than you will ever know. Thank you, Lem. This was perfect and timely.

If that means you are evolving to the point where you can get past your "aversion to presenting evidence", then you are welcome. It's always good to see someone grow and learn.

[Lem]

.