Covid Origin

[Rival]

And if he thinks that vaccination during a pandemic will create a viral cold war that will doom society, I'd love to hear him explain why it didn't during the smallpox epidemic or other mass vaccination campaigns during epidemics.
Because that giving vaccines will create resistant strains like with antibacterial is literally antivax propaganda.

Well, listen to him then

That's literally all I can ask anyone to do. If you and others just don't listen to the opposing views, I can't really say much because there's nothing left to say. But if a vaccinologist is having an issue with the vaccine and the vaccine rollout and folks won't listen, then to whom will they listen? And why? If you want to understand them, listen to them.

So far, all am hearing is 'it's a conspiracy so I won't bother'. This is unhelpful. This isn't just some guy on the internet; it's a trained vaccinologist who has worked with this stuff for years. What is he going to gain from peddling nonsense? He will only destroy his own industry. There is nuance and it should be taken into account.

 

[InChrist]

I'm wondering if there's any way of saying you are leery of the vaccine and the origin of the Corona is something you're not sure of without someone calling you xyz.

Either you agree with the MSM or you're xyz.

Can we not disagree anymore?

No, it seems clear we cannot disagree, have another view or even ask questions.

Look what happened to Joe Rogan. He asked a simple question, “Should young people get the vaccine?”. Suddenly he was attacked across the media and labeled an anti- vax... for asking a question.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well, listen to him then

That's literally all I can ask anyone to do. If you and others just don't listen to the opposing views, I can't really say much because there's nothing left to say. But if a vaccinologist is having an issue with the vaccine and the vaccine rollout and folks won't listen, then to whom will they listen? And why? If you want to understand them, listen to them.

So far, all am hearing is 'it's a conspiracy so I won't bother'. This is unhelpful. This isn't just some guy on the internet; it's a trained vaccinologist who has worked with this stuff for years. What is he going to gain from peddling nonsense? He will only destroy his own industry. There is nuance and it should be taken into account.

Why listen to him over all the other 'vaccineologists' who think he's being wrecklessly doomsday propheteering?
The Doomsday Prophecy of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche

His view is a minority view among virologists *for a reason.* Do you really think that they're just not doing due diligence?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No, it seems clear we cannot disagree, have another view or even ask questions.

Look what happened to Joe Rogan. He asked a simple question, “Should young people get the vaccine?”. Suddenly he was attacked across the media and labeled an anti- vax... for asking a question.

He didn't ask a question. He made several declarative statements that were demonstrably incorrect, as he does and admits to doing.

He says that healthy young people shouldn't get vaccinated, which is against health guidelines because young healthy people are the number one spreaders and the vaccine lowers transmission rates (doesn't stop it but does lower it).
And also because even young healthy people can still get sick and injured or killed by covid, but more likely they're going to get other people sick and injured from covid unnecessarily.

 

[exchemist]

I'm wondering if there's any way of saying you are leery of the vaccine and the origin of the Corona is something you're not sure of without someone calling you xyz.

Either you agree with the MSM or you're xyz.

Can we not disagree anymore?

Ugh. I wish you had not said that. Anyone using the abbreviation MSM makes me suspicious that they are going to start talking politically biased nonsense. The term seems chiefly to be used by people who go in for "alternative facts" - i.e. lies. I had not put you in that category.

On the origin of the virus, from what I have read it could have come from the wild or it could have escaped from the Wuhan lab. Both are reasonable possibilities. What is not reasonable is any notion it was genetically modified or deliberately released by a state actor.

 

[exchemist]

Well, listen to him then

That's literally all I can ask anyone to do. If you and others just don't listen to the opposing views, I can't really say much because there's nothing left to say. But if a vaccinologist is having an issue with the vaccine and the vaccine rollout and folks won't listen, then to whom will they listen? And why? If you want to understand them, listen to them.

So far, all am hearing is 'it's a conspiracy so I won't bother'. This is unhelpful. This isn't just some guy on the internet; it's a trained vaccinologist who has worked with this stuff for years. What is he going to gain from peddling nonsense? He will only destroy his own industry. There is nuance and it should be taken into account.

He's a vet, with a product to sell.

 

[nPeace]

I would love to elaborate, but on RF my opinion won't be appreciated, hence the short reply

You are forgetting nPeace is on RF.
PM me if you don't want to share here. I'd love to hear.

 

[sun rise]

On the origin of the virus, from what I have read it could have come from the wild or it could have escaped from the Wuhan lab. Both are reasonable possibilities. What is not reasonable is any notion it was genetically modified or deliberately released by a state actor.

They might have been testing genetic modifications theoretically. And there have been problems with similar facilities.

What causes my reaction is the attempt to make it a deliberate attack by China as well as people tying that into anti-vaxx and other crazy theories.

There are particular claims associated with the Wuhan lab and COVID's structure. If some virologists and geneticists agree with some of the basic structural claims, I'll start taking it seriously.

 

[exchemist]

They might have been testing genetic modifications theoretically. And there have been problems with similar facilities.

What causes my reaction is the attempt to make it a deliberate attack by China as well as people tying that into anti-vaxx and other crazy theories.

There are particular claims associated with the Wuhan lab and COVID's structure. If some virologists and geneticists agree with some of the basic structural claims, I'll start taking it seriously.

When the virus was genetically sequenced, no evidence of genetic modification was seen. In other words, the sequences looked just like a natural virus. Here are a couple of reports of the work by the Scripps Institute on this question:

Is COVID-19 Man-Made or Natural?

The new coronavirus was not man-made, study shows

 

[Debater Slayer]

Can we not disagree anymore?

We can, but we should all be aware that scientific evidence and consensus aren't decided by disagreement among laypeople. If two people disagree about a scientific fact, then chances are one of them is simply wrong.

 

[InChrist]

Ugh. I wish you had not said that. Anyone using the abbreviation MSM makes me suspicious that they are going to start talking politically biased nonsense. The term seems chiefly to be used by people who go in for "alternative facts" - i.e. lies. I had not put you in that category.

On the origin of the virus, from what I have read it could have come from the wild or it could have escaped from the Wuhan lab. Both are reasonable possibilities. What is not reasonable is any notion it was genetically modified or deliberately released by a state actor.

I think both those possibilities are reasonable. I don’t know about the genetically modified assertion, but from what I understand there was gain of function research going on at the Wuhan lab.

 

[ronki23]

I have difficulty understanding pandemics and epidemics because they come from natural sources:

SARS: Civet cat
Ebola: Apes
Bird flu: Birds
Swine Flu: Birds and Pigs
CoVid: Pangolin

Haven't we humans evolved to be around animals ?

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you disagree with the mainstream view, you're labelled a conspiracist. We're not conspiracists. Why is the mainstream media view the only acceptable one that doesn't need to be defended and everything else is somehow fringe? Why can't we instead have competing theories that are all taken just as seriously without one being labelled mainstream and the other a conspiracy?

There is no need to even look at what MSM say. Instead, I prefer looking at what relevant health authorities, such as the WHO and CDC, have to say about this specific topic. They both strongly recommend vaccines and confirm that the current scientific consensus is that they are safe (with extremely rare exceptions, such as an allergic reaction) and not nearly as dangerous as the virus.

Once again, science isn't like celebrity gossip or pop entertainment. It isn't up to the media or laypeople to have "competing theories"; only relevant experts are qualified to do that with any degree of reliable accuracy.

 

[Rival]

There is no need to even look at what MSM say. Instead, I prefer looking at what relevant health authorities, such as the WHO and CDC, have to say about this specific topic. They both strongly recommend vaccines and confirm that the current scientific consensus is that they are safe (with extremely rare exceptions, such as an allergic reaction) and not nearly as dangerous as the virus.

Once again, science isn't like celebrity gossip or pop entertainment. It isn't up to the media or laypeople to have "competing theories"; only relevant experts are qualified to do that with any degree of reliable accuracy.

The problem is, both the WHO and the former head of the CDC haven't ruled out the lab leak and the former CDC head believes in lab leak theory.

So I have no idea what gives.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's literally all I can ask anyone to do. If you and others just don't listen to the opposing views, I can't really say much because there's nothing left to say. But if a vaccinologist is having an issue with the vaccine and the vaccine rollout and folks won't listen, then to whom will they listen? And why? If you want to understand them, listen to them.

People should listen to scientific consensus, not opinions of outliers who contradict what every health authority has stated so far. There are geologists who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, but I think most of us know better than to take their word over that of scientific consensus.

I'm not sure why it seems to be so hard for some people to apply to the pandemic the same standards of critical thinking and respect for expert consensus that they apply to most other fields. It's dangerously bizarre, to say the least.

 

[stvdv]

The term seems

exactly

Ugh. I wish you had not said that. Anyone using the abbreviation MSM makes me suspicious that they are going to start talking politically biased nonsense. The term seems chiefly to be used by people who go in for "alternative facts" - i.e. lies. I had not put you in that category.

#MeToo

I don't like people say this to others, feels denigrating, smiley does not make it feel better to me

 

[sun rise]

When the virus was genetically sequenced, no evidence of genetic modification was seen. In other words, the sequences looked just like a natural virus. Here are a couple of reports of the work by the Scripps Institute on this question:

Is COVID-19 Man-Made or Natural?

The new coronavirus was not man-made, study shows

I wondered.

And if someone comes up with a properly constructed and peer reviewed research study that reaches a different conclusion, the question can be reopened.

 

[sun rise]

critical thinking

The level of critical thinking, appreciation for expertise and respect for evidence is so low that if it were gas in a car's tank, the engine would be sputtering.

That's a bit of an exaggeration but sadly too many fit that description.

 

[Rival]

People should listen to scientific consensus, not opinions of outliers who contradict what every health authority has stated so far. There are geologists who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, but I think most of us know better than to take their word over that of scientific consensus.

I'm not sure why it seems to be so hard for some people to apply to the pandemic the same standards of critical thinking and respect for medical consensus that they apply to most other fields. It's dangerously bizarre, to say the least.

It's starting to sound an awful lot like 'critical thinking' is believing what everyone else believes. I thought I'm meant to use my brain and come to my own conclusions.

They said cite the WHO. So I cited the WHO. They didn't like it.
They said cite the CDC. So I cited them. They didn't like it.
They said cite scientists. So I cited them. They didn't like it.

And apparently now China is a bastion of truth. I'm not so sure what's so controversial about a lab leak. They were doing gain of function research in a Wuhan lab, they were researching virii, they were funded partially by western scientists who would have to cover their behinds if anything bad happened. An accidental leak from a laboratory is not unheard of.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The problem is, both the WHO and the former head of the CDC haven't ruled out the lab leak and the former CDC head believes in lab leak theory.

So I have no idea what gives.

The lab leak is kind of a moot point as far as controlling the virus goes, since Pandora's box is now open either way. I'm focusing on the statements about the vaccine, such as these:

Again, I would honestly recommend you listen to the video. He explains it way better than I ever could. He's also concerned that, from an evolutionary POV, vaccinating during a pandemic is the worst time because it just leads to a kind of cold war where the virus mutates in response. Mass vaccinating during normal times is better because the disease won't do this.

The implication of the guy's argument, per the above summary, is that we should somehow wait for the pandemic to end before rolling out mass vaccination. As irresponsible as that is, it is also against what health authorities currently recommend. You can find fringe (and yes, such an opinion is indeed fringe in the scientific community) opinions in almost any field. That doesn't mean they're correct, responsible, or reasonable.