I don't believe many will mistake any virologist (or public health bureaucrat) for Ed Witten or Noam Chomsky.
But in a different cognitive realm, virologists and others deceiving the people sure seem like sociopaths.
The apparent self-regard and besieged cult psychology of virologists defending 'natural zoonosis' dogma makes me wonder, in so many words, whom these people believe they are.
I know the tendency to pathologize those holding to differing views, but the narcissism and entitlement of Fauci, Collins and company to offer that SARS-CoV-2 looked potentially “engineered” privately, and then organize a paper for public consumption stating "we" do not believe "laboratory-based scenario is plausible," seems unhealthy, anti-social, as well as an affront to democratic societies.
Implausible evolved into conspiracy-minded and racist.
"And so we are left to wonder how a straightforward hypothesis got labeled first as a conspiracy and later as a reflection of racism. Retracing coverage and public comments, I found a cautionary tale: Those who seek to suppress disinformation may be destined, themselves, to sow it," writes Megan K. Stack in the Times, (March 28, 2023). ... "Then, in April 2020, Dr. Fauci pointed White House reporters to the publication, presenting it as compelling evidence of zoonotic crossover — without revealing that he had been involved with its creation and had even, according to the emails, given it his approval."
Butterfly collectors and clerks, that's what many in the bio-scientific community appear.
But worse, these people are deluded as self-appointed apostles guarding the word, who display no remorse about lying to the people most adversely affected by their work. No 'my god, what have we done, we owe people the truth.'
...the blatant lies we are hearing at every turn. I am 77 and was a long-time systems theorist when science was thrilling to explore. I can’t tell you how am glad I am to be done with corrupt, self-serving credential-less nobodies who know nuttin’, honey.
Funny article. Virology seemed conceptually pretty simple, but I don't know the details of how they work in the lab. Maybe they washed out of physics & Chem or engineering cuz they couldn't hack the math.
I'm not a virologist. Just a field biologist/ecologist. But that doesn't stop me realising, as JJ Couey has done and explained very well, coronaviruses aren't capable of creating or sustaining a global pandemic. They mutate far too readily towards relatively benign endemic status. This applies regardless of whether they're engineered or not. It's just an inevitable consequence of being RNA viruses.
Given this, the only way to create a 'pandemic' with CoVs as an imputed 'cause' is to lie your face off and hype the whole thing to high heaven using, among other things, inappropriate PCR testing allied to the spectre of 'asymptomatic infection', inappropriate and harmful treatment protocols, doctored statistics, misattributed deaths, media hype and transfection. And very possibly deliberate releases of infectious cDNA clones to get the whole thing off on the right note of panic.
Which means we're not talking about a lab leak. we're talking about deliberate releases. And since it all tracks back to the DoD, the use of a bioweapon. Which is a whole other narrative to some poor lab tech tripping over their incompetence and getting accidently infected.
I always thought, the probability of multiple nucleotides evolving in a prefect manner to generate the furin cleavage site, was in itself enough mathematical evidence to make it clear the origin wasn't natural. A length of just 4 amnio acids, is 12 nucleotides. What is the mathematical probability 12 nucleotides evolved in such a way? I know life is not completely random, and silent mutations also throw a wrench in this thought, but the concept of dependent probability always stuck in my mind. A 1/4 chance, occurring 12 times in a row, reaches incredibly small odds. Mutations don't occur in "chunks" generally, they are often dispersed through the genome in random places. The only thing that generates said chunk insertions to my knowledge, is recombination, and of course human interference. There is no place in the natural world, for a furin cleavage site to have recombined into the genome of SARS CoV 2. I'm also being incredibly generous with my nucleotide lengths. I firmly believe, the Pradhan paper and BLAST alignment, are correct. The amount of amino acids homologous to random variants of HIV in large chunks, reaches into the 30s, in 4 separate sections. This also of course includes the sequence section with the PRRA "mutation" nestled in it. The first 2 inserts, are 6 amino acids long, the third is 12, and the last one, the one with majority of the FCS in it (since the final R is conserved across ronas), is 8, with the verifiable FCS itself consisting of 4 (PRRA). What is the mathematical probability of a section of 6-12 amino acids changing, to ironically match an HIV variant? Especially when there is no obvious reservoir for it to recombine with HIV? What are the chances this happens twice? 3 times? 4 times? Also, in a natural occurrence, what are the chances that 3 of these inserts, end up in the N terminus, the exact same place they are located in GP120? The only plausible explanation would again, be recombination, though to my knowledge, recombination events are very rare (And not possible unless both viruses are infecting the same terrain. Last I checked, bats did not get HIV). It's akin to having a psychotic man try to sell me a unicorn, that's really just a horse with a cardboard horn glued to its forehead. This is why I think the preprint was suppressed, and to this day, a SARS CoV 2 alignment to variants of HIV, has not been performed by anyone else (why make something you know can't be allowed to pass?). That knowledge obliterates any argument these people have for natural origin, unless I have missed something? I'm sure they'd all be happy to tell me how stupid I am regardless, as they try to insist to me recombination with HIV variants occurs on the reg in bat populations. Something literally, does not add up
Best line: “One may justifiably be as skeptical about “most virologists” claiming a natural origin of a pandemic emerging near a problem-prone virology lab as one is skeptical of “most oil companies” claiming nature caused an oil spill right outside their problem-prone oil rig.”
Fair follow up: What lab or labs fit this description? Who is describing them as such?
Most virologists think it is going to be very hard to get grants if COVID was the product of a virology laboratory. They are probably right.
I don't believe many will mistake any virologist (or public health bureaucrat) for Ed Witten or Noam Chomsky.
But in a different cognitive realm, virologists and others deceiving the people sure seem like sociopaths.
The apparent self-regard and besieged cult psychology of virologists defending 'natural zoonosis' dogma makes me wonder, in so many words, whom these people believe they are.
I know the tendency to pathologize those holding to differing views, but the narcissism and entitlement of Fauci, Collins and company to offer that SARS-CoV-2 looked potentially “engineered” privately, and then organize a paper for public consumption stating "we" do not believe "laboratory-based scenario is plausible," seems unhealthy, anti-social, as well as an affront to democratic societies.
Implausible evolved into conspiracy-minded and racist.
"And so we are left to wonder how a straightforward hypothesis got labeled first as a conspiracy and later as a reflection of racism. Retracing coverage and public comments, I found a cautionary tale: Those who seek to suppress disinformation may be destined, themselves, to sow it," writes Megan K. Stack in the Times, (March 28, 2023). ... "Then, in April 2020, Dr. Fauci pointed White House reporters to the publication, presenting it as compelling evidence of zoonotic crossover — without revealing that he had been involved with its creation and had even, according to the emails, given it his approval."
Butterfly collectors and clerks, that's what many in the bio-scientific community appear.
But worse, these people are deluded as self-appointed apostles guarding the word, who display no remorse about lying to the people most adversely affected by their work. No 'my god, what have we done, we owe people the truth.'
Love it Alex, very well said
Excellent commentary! Thank you for your insightful thoughts. I wonder if we’ll ever rise above the n
...the blatant lies we are hearing at every turn. I am 77 and was a long-time systems theorist when science was thrilling to explore. I can’t tell you how am glad I am to be done with corrupt, self-serving credential-less nobodies who know nuttin’, honey.
Funny article. Virology seemed conceptually pretty simple, but I don't know the details of how they work in the lab. Maybe they washed out of physics & Chem or engineering cuz they couldn't hack the math.
I'm not a virologist. Just a field biologist/ecologist. But that doesn't stop me realising, as JJ Couey has done and explained very well, coronaviruses aren't capable of creating or sustaining a global pandemic. They mutate far too readily towards relatively benign endemic status. This applies regardless of whether they're engineered or not. It's just an inevitable consequence of being RNA viruses.
Given this, the only way to create a 'pandemic' with CoVs as an imputed 'cause' is to lie your face off and hype the whole thing to high heaven using, among other things, inappropriate PCR testing allied to the spectre of 'asymptomatic infection', inappropriate and harmful treatment protocols, doctored statistics, misattributed deaths, media hype and transfection. And very possibly deliberate releases of infectious cDNA clones to get the whole thing off on the right note of panic.
Which means we're not talking about a lab leak. we're talking about deliberate releases. And since it all tracks back to the DoD, the use of a bioweapon. Which is a whole other narrative to some poor lab tech tripping over their incompetence and getting accidently infected.
I always thought, the probability of multiple nucleotides evolving in a prefect manner to generate the furin cleavage site, was in itself enough mathematical evidence to make it clear the origin wasn't natural. A length of just 4 amnio acids, is 12 nucleotides. What is the mathematical probability 12 nucleotides evolved in such a way? I know life is not completely random, and silent mutations also throw a wrench in this thought, but the concept of dependent probability always stuck in my mind. A 1/4 chance, occurring 12 times in a row, reaches incredibly small odds. Mutations don't occur in "chunks" generally, they are often dispersed through the genome in random places. The only thing that generates said chunk insertions to my knowledge, is recombination, and of course human interference. There is no place in the natural world, for a furin cleavage site to have recombined into the genome of SARS CoV 2. I'm also being incredibly generous with my nucleotide lengths. I firmly believe, the Pradhan paper and BLAST alignment, are correct. The amount of amino acids homologous to random variants of HIV in large chunks, reaches into the 30s, in 4 separate sections. This also of course includes the sequence section with the PRRA "mutation" nestled in it. The first 2 inserts, are 6 amino acids long, the third is 12, and the last one, the one with majority of the FCS in it (since the final R is conserved across ronas), is 8, with the verifiable FCS itself consisting of 4 (PRRA). What is the mathematical probability of a section of 6-12 amino acids changing, to ironically match an HIV variant? Especially when there is no obvious reservoir for it to recombine with HIV? What are the chances this happens twice? 3 times? 4 times? Also, in a natural occurrence, what are the chances that 3 of these inserts, end up in the N terminus, the exact same place they are located in GP120? The only plausible explanation would again, be recombination, though to my knowledge, recombination events are very rare (And not possible unless both viruses are infecting the same terrain. Last I checked, bats did not get HIV). It's akin to having a psychotic man try to sell me a unicorn, that's really just a horse with a cardboard horn glued to its forehead. This is why I think the preprint was suppressed, and to this day, a SARS CoV 2 alignment to variants of HIV, has not been performed by anyone else (why make something you know can't be allowed to pass?). That knowledge obliterates any argument these people have for natural origin, unless I have missed something? I'm sure they'd all be happy to tell me how stupid I am regardless, as they try to insist to me recombination with HIV variants occurs on the reg in bat populations. Something literally, does not add up
“Most doctors say…”.
Remember the AMA was taking kickbacks from Good Housekeeping.
Best line: “One may justifiably be as skeptical about “most virologists” claiming a natural origin of a pandemic emerging near a problem-prone virology lab as one is skeptical of “most oil companies” claiming nature caused an oil spill right outside their problem-prone oil rig.”
Fair follow up: What lab or labs fit this description? Who is describing them as such?
All valid except for the "18M deaths" bit. That assertion has as many or more flaws built into it as the assertions of the virologists.