what nonsense and deceptive title The reporters are not scientists and are not able to process scientific information.
She does not present an argument to support her conclusion. Despite several of the interviewees stating that there is not any evidence to support the virus was spread naturally in the animal market. So how exactly does this option become the most likely? Her claim is false, and a non sequitor.
One of the "scientists" makes the ridiculous claim that these viruses just don't grow very well in species other than bats! DUH. She is an ostrich, hiding her head in the sand. But this is false and contradicts the entire premise of this virus research. Emily de La Bruyère is more on the ball, and skeptical of the official story.
I had a Professor who was an expert of Food Safety, and he had written many pieces on the Mad Cow disease outbreak in Britain. He said something very interesting about the official report. he said that each piece of data in the the report was true, but the whole publication together was a lie! That is somethign to apply to many philosophical and practical questions. The above video is another such example.
This is a good interview, shwoing the entire interview with Dr Fauci. I agree with him on how he is approaching the task of handling the epidemic.
The flaws in his argument about the origins of the virus -
a) He says it naturally evolved in the wild then jumped species. However, they have not provided intermediate species of these viruses, i.e. form the old SARS to the new one.
b) Gain of function reseach mimics evolution, so if this had been done with coronaviruses, it would also show a natural progression of evolution.
I met a biologist at the Volcani Institute in Israel (plant research) some years ago, on how engineer plants without using genetic engineering. He introduced me to one method which would mimic natural evolution, but is speeded up, and would not use classical genetic engineering methods. If this or more advanced methods could be applied to virus research (which is not my field) then equaly, there might not be traceable signs of tampering.
c) His argument about a wild virus sample escaping from the lab is actually concealing the truth, which he is not speaking. He claims there is no difference between this event (lab escape) and infection in the wild! There is a big difference. The Wuhan CDC is 300 yards from the wet market, and the Virology lab is 8 miles away. On the other hand, the wild bat cave where their bat-woman collects these samples from is 1000 miles away. So there is much gretaer popensity and proximity for the virus to spread to humans from a lab, in Wuhan, than from an undisturbed Bat Cave. He does not deny the possibility of leak, but he dminishes its significance.
what nonsense and deceptive title
ReplyDeleteThe reporters are not scientists and are not able to process scientific information.
She does not present an argument to support her conclusion. Despite several of the interviewees stating that there is not any evidence to support the virus was spread naturally in the animal market. So how exactly does this option become the most likely? Her claim is false, and a non sequitor.
One of the "scientists" makes the ridiculous claim that these viruses just don't grow very well in species other than bats! DUH. She is an ostrich, hiding her head in the sand. But this is false and contradicts the entire premise of this virus research. Emily de La Bruyère is more on the ball, and skeptical of the official story.
I had a Professor who was an expert of Food Safety, and he had written many pieces on the Mad Cow disease outbreak in Britain. He said something very interesting about the official report. he said that each piece of data in the the report was true, but the whole publication together was a lie! That is somethign to apply to many philosophical and practical questions. The above video is another such example.
Fauci: No scientific evidence the coronavirus was made in a Chinese lab
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/anthony-fauci-no-scientific-evidence-the-coronavirus-was-made-in-a-chinese-lab-cvd/
This is a good interview, shwoing the entire interview with Dr Fauci. I agree with him on how he is approaching the task of handling the epidemic.
The flaws in his argument about the origins of the virus -
a) He says it naturally evolved in the wild then jumped species. However, they have not provided intermediate species of these viruses, i.e. form the old SARS to the new one.
b) Gain of function reseach mimics evolution, so if this had been done with coronaviruses, it would also show a natural progression of evolution.
I met a biologist at the Volcani Institute in Israel (plant research) some years ago, on how engineer plants without using genetic engineering. He introduced me to one method which would mimic natural evolution, but is speeded up, and would not use classical genetic engineering methods. If this or more advanced methods could be applied to virus research (which is not my field) then equaly, there might not be traceable signs of tampering.
c) His argument about a wild virus sample escaping from the lab is actually concealing the truth, which he is not speaking. He claims there is no difference between this event (lab escape) and infection in the wild!
There is a big difference. The Wuhan CDC is 300 yards from the wet market, and the Virology lab is 8 miles away. On the other hand, the wild bat cave where their bat-woman collects these samples from is 1000 miles away. So there is much gretaer popensity and proximity for the virus to spread to humans from a lab, in Wuhan, than from an undisturbed Bat Cave. He does not deny the possibility of leak, but he dminishes its significance.