[HN Gopher] The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a n...
___________________________________________________________________
The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally
evolved virus [pdf]
Author : 2a0c40
Score : 34 points
Date : 2020-07-17 21:23 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.minervanett.no)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.minervanett.no)
| gowld wrote:
| Impossible for non experts to interpret, but deserving of an
| equally careful and thorough response in any rebuttal claims.
|
| > Conclusion
|
| > We have deduced the internal logic of published research which
| resulted in the exact functionalities of SARS-CoV-2,
|
| > including the convergence of agreement from difference classes
| of source,
|
| > the timings of the stages of the research,
|
| > and the development of documented capabilities by named
| institutions and individuals.
|
| > _These meet the criteria of means, timing, agent and place_ in
| this reconstructed historical aetiology to produce sufficient
| confidence in the account to reverse the burden of proof.
|
| > Henceforth, those who would maintain that the Covid-19 pandemic
| arose from zoonotic transfer need to explain precisely why this
| more parsimonious account is wrong before asserting that their
| evidence is persuasive, most especially when, as we have
| indicated, we note puzzling errors in their use of evidence.
|
| > In our companion article, in a similar forensic manner we will
| explore the primary evidence used to sustain the hypothesis of
| zoonotic transfer.
|
| > In neither this article nor the next do we speculate about
| motive.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Just a side note, but this is uncharacteristically overwrought
| and overconfident language for scientific discourse.
|
| EDIT: It sounds less like a scientific/academic argument and
| more like the caricature of a legal argument.
| bnjms wrote:
| Not sure he has any options there. The normal approach would
| need to be overwhelming to be taken seriously without the
| protection of some political language. You'll need to defend
| your reasoning just for people to hear you out once there are
| political implications. And that's on top of the normal work.
| I can't interpret this though so I cannot say myself.
| [deleted]
| belltaco wrote:
| Lets throw them a bone and say they're right, what do we do next?
| What actions do or can we take? Secure the labs? Shouldn't that
| be done regardless?
| i_cannot_hack wrote:
| > A Norwegian virologist has made claims about the non-natural
| origins of the new coronavirus. These claims were, reportedly, in
| an earlier draft of the paper, and Dr Sorensen has since repeated
| them to Norwegian press.
|
| > The final version of the research paper, which has undergone
| peer review and been accepted for publication in the Quarterly
| Review of Biophysics Discovery, doesn't actually make any claims
| about whether the virus was natural or man-made in its current
| form.
|
| > The scientific community widely agrees that the virus was not
| artificially engineered.
|
| https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-cla...
| maest wrote:
| This is a really big claim, so some background checking:
|
| The paper was published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics[0]
| (this accepted version is materially different from the original
| link posted here).
|
| Only thing I could find about Birger Sorensen's was his Linkedin
| page [1a] and the Immunor page where he's listed as the Chairman
| [1b].
|
| Angus Dagleish looks legit, although it's notable that he did
| stoop for Parliament in 2016 as a UKIP candidate, according to
| Wikipedia[2].
|
| Can't find any primary sources for Andreas Susrud.
|
| [0]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
| core/c...
|
| [1a]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/birger-
| sorensen-174a20b/?origina... btw, if this is considered doxxing,
| let me know and I can remove the link.
|
| [1b]: https://immunor.com/about-immunor/board-of-directors/
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Dalgleish
| solvorn wrote:
| There's evidence but not proof. People confuse these words all
| the time.
| bnjms wrote:
| I'm open to this idea but I cannot imagine a goal for this line
| of research. It doesn't appear to benefit anyone.
| foogazi wrote:
| How about to find out if it's possible to artificially start a
| pandemic ?
| hdjrkrmfkt wrote:
| "Gain of function" is regularly done to make various viruses
| "better" so as to study then how to defend against that
| potential mutation happening naturally.
|
| See the big scandal from some years ago when the H5N1 virus was
| modified in a lab to be airborne.
| etangent wrote:
| That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the
| current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for
| your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your
| arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you
| have overwhelming evidence that you are right."
| belltaco wrote:
| It's because normal people are not equipped to deal with the
| cherrypicking and manipulative narrative that these kinds of
| "evidence" papers show. Take the 5G conspiracy for example,
| 100+ cell phone towers attacked, and workers setting up
| attacked as well. Lots of testable assertions made, none backed
| up with any kind of evidence.
| emsy wrote:
| But this could very well be a result of priming people for a
| consensus (or its opposition) I'm too young to judge but it
| wasn't always like this or was it?
| chrismcb wrote:
| Galileo says, no it wasn't always like this.
| johnny22 wrote:
| depends on what you mean by always, but looking back at how
| this was handled re: tobacco, leaded gasoline, and climate
| change (pre 2000) should give you some idea.
|
| As far as I personally can see, it's been like this for a
| large portion of the 1900s at least.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| I agree normal people aren't well equipped. But when you
| phrase it that way, you make it sounds like the professionals
| are well equipped.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI
| logjammin wrote:
| "You better agree with consensus" has always been the current
| culture in science. It's nothing to do with science itself --
| just human emotionality. We don't change unless we have to,
| unless there's overwhelming evidence that we need to.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-07-17 23:00 UTC)