Well write a load of political shite, expect a load of political responses.
Not madly surprised as his deliberate mischaracterisation of people, correctly on the evidence, ignoring anything Trump said as having any persuasive weight was telling. He complained that people were being unfair to poor Trump. Which is a standard Trumpy trope.
Yes, but the Lancet paper, as pointed out, was written (as was the other one) with the guy who was financing the GoF experiments in bat coronaviruses at that laboratory as chair, so at the very least, his conflicts of interest should have been disclosed (they wre not). They also group that particular theory in with other much more plausible explanations, painting with a very broad brush, and conveniently covering up his more than slightly unethical experimentation funding.
Do the same things youâre saying apply to Stephen Carl Quay MDn PHD?
His paper seems to be a much more detailed version, and hasnât (Iâm only 20 pages in) delved much into politics.
https://zenodo.org/record/4642956#.YIa66ehKhPY (yeah, I posted it before, but in case you donât want to scroll up)
âBeyond a reasonable doubtâ immediately causes me to doubt the conclusion, but my background does not really lend itself to analyzing a paper like that. As I noted above, there are interesting factors brought up, but nothing definitive and there is unlikely to be anything definitive. Hence the problem with political overlay on all of it. As far as Wadeâs right wing, racist FUD, that is something I was unaware of, but does nothing to change my statement, only moves the needle from the ânot definitiveâ to âhighly questionable, but IMHO canât be easily ignoredâ category. I would dearly love for science to be free of political influence, but that was never the case, and unlikely to happen anytime soon.
No, the question of lab release vs animal vector remains open, very important, and should be examined carefully.
Iâm saying that Nicholas Wade is a dishonest narrator with major credibility problems, and his article should be examined with highlighter and lots of double-checking, especially for whatâs been omitted.
Stephen Carl Quay MDn PHD. 140 pages, with no table of contents, grumble. Donât people write these in apps that generate those automatically? (Iâve been going through the 450+ paper pages of medical files from momâs previous doctor, looking particular tests for her new doctor, all carefully organized by the order that they scooped the papers out of folders from the cabinet and piled them in a heap to be digitized. And they stopped numbering the printed pages after 358. I like indexes.)
Since Iâm not an expert in the stuff in there, what I need is an equal and opposite expert, and bang them together.
Pre-publication peer review.The manuscript was provided by email to the following medical and scientific peers to afford an opportunity to review, comment, and critique the manuscript before publication.
Has there been peer commentary published?
for those who donât twitter, this about anti-vax employees complaining because their employer is offering vaccinated workers $1/hour extra to their wages. it makes them feel discriminated against because they wonât get the money.
would it help to try to sell the anti-foreign aid anti-vaxxers on the idea that if we get enough shots in the arm here we wonât be able to send vaccines abroad so âfurrinersâ can get them?
Ya think?! Itâs looking pretty dubious for my chances of a second AZ shot in Ontario.
As long as science is done by people, itâs never going to be free of politics, bias, or ulterior motives unfortunately.
BTW, if youâre going to pass anything on to more knowledgable people, the one Iâve been reading seems much, much more detailed in the dissection and discussion of what exactly doesnât work in the zoonotics therom, including a lot of missing information and pieces of evidence which donât provide the sort of certainties the people who presented them claim.
I very much agree on Mr Wade presents a rather one sided article, and Iâve been much happier to read some of the stuff he linked, as the evidence in there is presented in full (well, except for the actual genetic code but as I remember my Dad bringing home reams of printed out gene sequences⊠itâs very dry reading⊠we used the back side to draw on 
)
Thanks for finding that out!
They pretty much seals the deal for me: that lab-escape piece is not to be trusted.
Eta: Iâm not taking a position on the lab-escape theory itself, just that article.
Not sure on the peer review part, Iâm certainly not a competent geneticist, and I think it would definitely be in the interest of the world to have it reviewed and vetted by people who know the science.
fuck - that seems highly plausible.
however, this hardly follows a trump like narrative, routing the source of the funds and initiation of the research on American companies, and the NIH.
We just got our second jab of Moderna!
Colleges in states that have passed laws against vaccine mandates are trying similar ways to get students to vaccinate:
Can somebody post the definition of FLICC again
The delay in the release of raw material for the CoronaVac vaccine may change the vaccination schedule as of June, according to Mr. Dimas Covas, director of the Butantan Institute, which produces the vaccine in Brazil. He also said that the immunization program could be impacted if the Chinese government does not allow the import of the materials.
The Institute hopes to resume filling the CoronaVac vials after May 15, when they expect receiving a new batch of raw material. The Government of the State of SĂŁo Paulo states that statements by the federal government against China affected the negotiations between the laboratories.
Ah, itâs like FUD for science
I think the âCCâ in the article under discussion is plausible. I donât see the âFLIâ.
I should note that when I posted the link, it was because I saw the article in the BAS, which has always been somewhat alarmist but also is a serious science advocacy periodical, with many Nobel laureates behind it. I did not know anything about the author, but what struck me in the article was (a) the quote from Baltimore, who is about as far from âFâ as you can get, and (b) the issue of conflict of interest for the authors of the two letters, which suggest the desirability of an independent evaluation.
