-->
@Elliott
There are actually a lot of current hypotheses from this year.
CHINA Continues To Commit SEVERE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES - Congressional Research Service
Posts
Total:
43
-->
@Greyparrot
@Elliott
I know you guys are having a back and forth on this, but I actually supplied evidence of the lab leak theory. . .
-->
@Public-Choice
I know. I was just trying to gauge interest in the truth as opposed to displaying skill at steelmanning a confirmation biased position.
Americans don’t even trust their institutions anymore. They think the elections was stolen from Trump.
The Supreme Court rules Roe . Wade unconstitutional and soon Gay, LGTB and same sex marriage will follow a similar outcome.
Why is America concerned about Human Rights in China when they practiced black slavery for 300 years, went thought a civil war and invaded countries like Vietnam, N Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq etc only to withdraw in disgrace.
Now they are trying to ban books that expose and shed light on Americas dismal Human Rights Record.
-->
@Public-Choice
The "pseudoscience" that The Epoch Times promotes is articles written by medical doctors and psychologists on meditation and other alternative and ancient Chinese treatments. I would know, since, until very recently, I was a regular reader of their website. Joseph Mercola is not a pseudoscientist. He is a medical doctor with an actual medical degree who actually cites studies in his articles. You don't have to agree with him. But calling a medical doctor who cites research and studies in every article a "pseudoscientist" is highly spurious behavior.One again, you don't have to agree with Dr. Joseph Mercola. But a medical doctor publishing summaries of research is certainly not "pseudoscience" simply because his positions disagree with yours. That is extremely lazy fact checking.
To be clear, anyone can be an advocate of pseudoscience by definition regardless of what degree you possess or what content you cite. It solely depends on the veracity of the content you cite, as well as how you portray it.
-->
@dustryder
I agree, Fauci embraced only the science that supported his policies and censored the rest.
Science that censors is absolutely psuedoscience.
-->
@Public-Choice
I know you guys are having a back and forth on this, but I actually supplied evidence of the lab leak theory. . .
Not really, the article’s main purpose seemed to be to attack
Dr Fauci. We know that the Wuhan laboratory received funding from the US and that it was studying coronavirus. If there is any evidence to support genetic
manipulation, I would have liked to see some links or a mention of peer reviewed
research that could be looked up.
My original post related to the creation of the virus through genetic manipulation, not the possibility of a lab leak.
I found this article that suggests the early cases of the virus originated from a Huanan seafood market in Wuhan. They didn’t just sell seafood but a wide variety of animals.
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715
My original post related to the creation of the virus through genetic manipulation, not the possibility of a lab leak.
I found this article that suggests the early cases of the virus originated from a Huanan seafood market in Wuhan. They didn’t just sell seafood but a wide variety of animals.
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715
-->
@Greyparrot
There are actually a lot of current hypotheses from this year.
Any current hypotheses regarding the origins of the coronavirus
would be of interest.
-->
@dustryder
anyone can be an advocate of pseudoscience by definition regardless of what degree you possess or what content you cite.
Pseudoscience definition: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific [1]
Scientific: of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science [2]
Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method [3]
And we all know what the scientific method is.
If a person is summarizing scientific studies published in journals, then how is he engaging in pseudoscience? The definition of pseudoscience is to "erroneously" regard something as scientific. Citing scientific studies in favor of a premise is not engaging in pseudoscience. It is simply citing science.
In fact, what Joseph Mercola does is no different to what Scientific American does when they publish a science explainer article or Nature does when they release a bulletin on something, or the gross majority of science textbooks when they teach science. They are simply providing their commentary on science issues and citing the requisite studies that confirm their summary. This is not pseudoscience by the definition.
Pseudoscience is when one WRONGLY uses science that does not agree with their claim or they cite studies that are erroneous or not real studies in support of their positions. Dr. Mercola does not do this any more than any other scientist would. Even great researchers are still prone to falling for pseudoscience. But that does not mean they are pseudoscientists. Dr. Mercola has definitely made some wrong conclusions, but this does not mean he is a pseudoscientist or all of his research is pseudoscience.
SOURCES:
-->
@Greyparrot
it is an admission that you are unable to make your own evaluations and a confession that you need a "cheat sheet
Idk if I agree, tbh.
To arrive at truth, we first need facts. Some websites, like Just Facts, the Congressional Research Service, ProCon.org, and others tend to provide heavily researched opinions.
Does this mean we question unwaveringly everything they say? Of course not.
But to arrive at any sort of truth, one needs to have facts, right? And if some outlets tend to supply proof for their assertions, then are those not more credible sources than those that do not?
Of course the gold standard in research is primary sources, comprehensive data, and other such original documents or sources, because they are (generally) not marred by observer bias or reporting bias, but if someone else is compiling such information, then that is a huge help, because one can then follow the links and get to the original sources.
So I think fact checking websites have a place, assuming they make logical arguments from original sources.
They certainly do not mean I let them do my thinking for me. They simply help in the research process, so long as they are quality fact checks.
-->
@Elliott
I found this article that suggests the early cases of the virus originated from a Huanan seafood market in Wuhan.
I don't think it says that.
From the abstract:
The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, was identified as a likely source of cases in early reports, but later this conclusion became controversial
They also, in the conclusion to their abstract, leave a very wide margin for them to be wrong:
Although there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred through the live wildlife trade in China and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In their Discussion section they state:
These findings suggest that infected animals were present at the Huanan market at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, we do not have access to any live animal samples from relevant species. Additional information, including sequencing data and detailed sampling strategy, would be invaluable to test this hypothesis comprehensively.
Their argument is based on how many of the cases were from proximity to the wet market. But correlation =/= causation. They state they believe there is a causation, but it is based in a correlation. They admit that, to "conclusively" test this hypothesis, they would have needed animal samples and sequencing data, which they did not have.
Moreover, this wet market was near the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But the paper does not discuss this possible objection to their research.
It is possible the people who work at the WIV live near the Huanon Market, as the unlinked cases fall into the Taipei Residential District and not the market. In fact most cases are unlinked to the market.
Thirdly, this is assuming the data is comprehensive for China. The WHO is still asking China for ALL the data from the outbreak, at least as of 2021. [1]
The study, according to the methods section, is using data from 2020 from what I could tell.
SOURCES:
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @ElliottI found this article that suggests the early cases of the virus originated from a Huanan seafood market in Wuhan.I don't think it says that.From the abstract:The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, was identified as a likely source of cases in early reports, but later this conclusion became controversialThey also, in the conclusion to their abstract, leave a very wide margin for them to be wrong:Although there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred through the live wildlife trade in China and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.In their Discussion section they state:These findings suggest that infected animals were present at the Huanan market at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, we do not have access to any live animal samples from relevant species. Additional information, including sequencing data and detailed sampling strategy, would be invaluable to test this hypothesis comprehensively.Their argument is based on how many of the cases were from proximity to the wet market. But correlation =/= causation. They state they believe there is a causation, but it is based in a correlation. They admit that, to "conclusively" test this hypothesis, they would have needed animal samples and sequencing data, which they did not have.Moreover, this wet market was near the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But the paper does not discuss this possible objection to their research.It is possible the people who work at the WIV live near the Huanon Market, as the unlinked cases fall into the Taipei Residential District and not the market. In fact most cases are unlinked to the market.Thirdly, this is assuming the data is comprehensive for China. The WHO is still asking China for ALL the data from the outbreak, at least as of 2021. [1]The study, according to the methods section, is using data from 2020 from what I could tell.SOURCES:
The WHO found no evidence that linked Covid to a lab in Wuhan.
They found the link improbable.
The Covid strain dominant in America was not the China strain but local spread.
Trump himself reported a single case of Covid from a China was found and isolated and the China travel ban was imposed soon after.
The cases found in New York came from Europe/UK.
-->
@Shila
But we don't have all the data, though. The WHO has been asking for it since 2021 and still has not received it.