What does it mean to graciously disagree about COVID?

[03Cobra (Vance)]

We will see what is revealed.

So far, the lab leak position has moved from a conspiracy theory akin to a faked moon landing
To
the most likely source of the disease according to the FBI, Department of Energy, and former head of the CDC.

The denials of gain of function research have been identified as lies.

So stay tuned.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Stop tuning out.

Satellite data suggests coronavirus may have hit China earlier: Researchers

From @klw’s article, just above:

But would mapping the residences of the earliest known patients cast doubt on the hypothesis that the market was the epicenter of the pandemic? I found a way to identify most of these locations by overlaying different low-resolution maps from a World Health Organization report. I then teamed up with Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute, who was leading an independent study of spatial patterns within the Huanan market, and we assembled a large, international team of experts.

We found that the earliest known COVID cases lived much closer to and more centered around the Huanan market than could be explained by chance. Crucially, this was true even of patients who reported that they hadn’t worked at the market, shopped there or knowingly been in contact with anyone who did.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

So far, the lab leak position has moved from a conspiracy theory akin to a faked moon landing
To
the most likely source of the disease according to the FBI, Department of Energy, and former head of the CDC.

I would like to hear them address the quite strong evidence for a natural origin in the Wuhan markets. I’m guessing they will never have to address that evidence. I’m guessing you will never address it either.

@03Cobra

The denials of gain of function research have been identified as lies.

What relevance does that have to the question at hand? All parties involved agree that SARS-CoV-2 has not been genetically modified, much less the product of “gain of function” research.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@T_aquaticus

What relevance does that have to the question at hand?

It demonstrates a pattern of telling lies by those involved in the campaign to squash any discussion of a potential lab leak.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

It demonstrates a pattern of telling lies by those involved in the campaign to squash any discussion of a potential lab leak.

So it’s just part of the conspiracy theory and not actual relevant evidence.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@T_aquaticus

So it’s just part of the conspiracy theory and not actual relevant evidence.

No, you misunderstood.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@Dale

the fact that a zoonotic transmission of the novel virus in the market is far more probable than his tribal contention that it was a remotely possible lab leak.

The Department of Energy, the FBI, and the former director of the CDC disagree with you.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

With a high level of confidence. Sure. Got it.

Maybe they have forgotten about the former or never seen the latter of the two things I posted, never mind all the other legitimate arguments you have ignored, and selectively, as just demonstrated.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

No, you misunderstood.

I don’t think I did. You are claiming there is a conspiracy to silence those who support the lab leak theory. This is irrelevant to the actual evidence. It’s a red herring, at best.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

The Department of Energy, the FBI, and the former director of the CDC disagree with you.

Evidence trumps opinions.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@T_aquaticus

You are claiming there is a conspiracy to silence those who support the lab leak theory.

No, I am saying there was a conspiracy to silence those who supported the lab leak position, a conspiracy that was effective for many months.

But the truth is coming out and now some are switching to pretending there never was a conspiracy — yet the unredacted emails are revealing.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

But the truth is coming out and now some are switching to pretending there never was a conspiracy — yet the unredacted emails are revealing.

That is irrelevant, even if true. The evidence is what matters. Playing the martyr card is not a replacement for evidence.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@T_aquaticus

The evidence is what matters.

Interesting comment for a person who claims to know what the majority of scientists think without having any evidence to support that assertion.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

Interesting comment for a person who claims to know what the majority of scientists think without having any evidence to support that assertion.

Those were unwarranted conclusions, and I have admitted as much. Can you do the same?

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@T_aquaticus

Can you do the same?

I did not make claims that require recanting.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

I did not make claims that require recanting.

It seems to me that it is completely unwarranted to conclude that there was a lab leak based on how proponents of the lab leak were treated. This isn’t evidence for a lab leak. So why do you continually bring it up?

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@T_aquaticus

It seems to me that it is completely unwarranted to conclude that there was a lab leak based on how proponents of the lab leak were treated.

That would be unwarranted.

Of course, I did not do that. I am certain that was not a factor in the FBI and the DoE determining that the lab leak was the likely source of Covid.

The censorship is relevant to the discussion, however inconvenient it is for those protecting their past actions and the CCP.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

It still puzzles me why you don’t think either of the two articles are worthy of your addressing them… Never mind, I just figured it out. Duh.