Official Covid Vaccine thread

You're the one extrapolating a simple claim into some contrived theory that violates your religious beliefs around tennis.

State clearly what you object to. Make it falsifiable/testable. Let's engage like adults.

I object that you continually make a stupid unverifiable claim as gospel and cower whenever the facts of his actual record and level of play are brought up. I object that you hide behind a specious argument because you can’t point out a single relevant thing relative to the matter without that one argument.

Good article summarizing the disgraceful media coverage of the lab leak theory. In fact, covid WAS a leak from the Wuhan lab. But our cancerous media denied it aggressively and attacked the courageous few who told the truth.

drewholden.substack.com

You Can't Overstate The Covid 'Lab Leak' Media Coverage Failure

Drew Holden

And you can't overstate its impact, either.

Link:drewholden.substack.com/p/you-cant-ove...

I think you might just be stupid? Let's try again.

"He hasn't won since Harambe diagnosed him" has nothing to do with whether you believe the diagnosis.

I understand you want to flail and yell but try and focus here.

Read this and then get back to me about which specific evidence compels you to still favor lab-leak over zoonosis.

astralcodexten.com

Practically-A-Book Review: Rootclaim $100,000 Lab Leak Debate

Scott Alexander

I watched 15 hours of COVID origins arguments so you don't have to - but you should!

Link:www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a...

Harambe's the definition of soy boy.

Asks me to states objections.

States objections.

Bro, just accept my falsehood.

You are a joke dude. Way to completely dodge everything.

I'll take a shot at that.

I did read the rootclaim challenge. Rootclaim lost because rootclaim did not successfully challenge several of Peter's allegations. The reason they didn't counter these points was that rootclaim assumed, arrogantly in my opinion, that they won those points and no further debate on those points was needed. (Since those points aren't evidence, per se, I won't go into them, but I can and will if anyone here cares to debate them.)

Here is sufficience evidence to win the lab leak premise under US civil court law, where the evidence does NOT need to be beyond a reasonable doubt, but only a preponderance of evidence. That is, it's more likely than not that the virus came from WIV.

Not one single animal was found to carry the virus. Not one. Not at the market. Not at the farms that supplied the market. Not one. In spite of the entire Chinese government desperately trying to find just one single animal with the virus, they could not. More importantly, they could not find a single trace of the virus at any farm raising any animals held for sale at the wet market.

The highest concentration of virus particulate was NOT found by the raccoon dog cages. It was actually found near aquariums and the first documented case from the market was a shrimp vendor. Since fish can't carry the virus, that raises significant doubts as to the raccoon dog zoonosis theory.

Documents and individual statements exist of phone calls and emails with Fauci that showed that the majority of scientists believed it was a lab leak until Fauci coerced them to change their opinion only a week later. An email exists from Collins (head of NIH) to Fauci telling Fauci to squelch the WIV origin theory. Which Fauci then did.

Further, both the Chinese and the US governments had a huge vested interest in discrediting the WIV leak theory. The reasons for China's position are obvious. The US reasons became apparent later.

If the WIV leak could be proven beyond a doubt, China could double down and accuse the US of doing illegal Gain of Function research in the lab through NIH funding of EcoHealth to bypass doing GoF research in the US. Thus, if proof surfaced to prove incontrovertably that it was a lab leak, China could turn around and blame the US for causing it with their GoF research. China's claim wouldn't hold water, but it wouldn't have to. It would put the blame for the leak squarely on the US in the court of world opinion. More importantly for Fauci, it would have pointed the finger at him. Fauci orchestrated a full court press to discredit the lab leak theory and it worked.

This evidence wouldn't be sufficient to win in a US criminal court, but it would have a very high chance of winning in a US civil court where the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence.

No, my response is that I specifically diagnosed him with Long COVID after watching him play and, since then, he has yet to win a tournamet. Playing far below his previous levels.

That is a very concise, specific prediction that has help up.

You may disagree with my diagnosis, but you certainly can't disagree with the facts: he hasn't won.

Amazing the mental gymnastics people will do to try and convince me Chokervic isn't obviously playing worse than normal. Dude is losing no-name tournaments to no-name players. My diagnosis looks more correct every day. Feel free to write paragraphs trying to convince yourself, I'll be here hoping he manages to recover from his long COVID.

None of this meets preponderance of evidence, there is not a single piece of positive evidence toward the lab-leak argument. All you've done is try and discredit a few of the many pieces of evidence arguing toward zoonosis. E.g. raccoon dogs which are not the only possible vector. And, the tests on raccoon dogs were 1) small scale 2) after the outbreak 3) only looking for active virus. None of these are particularly devastating to the theory. Plus, you've done some pretty elaborate chain-of-reasoning about how various nations would theoretically respond given hypotheticals.

What's missing is actual evidence for the lab leak.

I would ask you, as an exercise, cast the same level of skepticism on the lab-leak theories you push. You argue that China could easily push blame for a lab leak onto the US if it surfaced. Well, why don't they just fabricate it then and blame the US? If this was really what they would do, why haven't they just made it up? I think that calls into question your whole line of reasoning here just a bit.

You have wasted days of your life here. That's the only good thing about this thread.

It takes me maybe a minute or two to write a post. Easy. In return to get to refute hours of BS.

Good value!

I put myself up for consideration as a typical old (63), no-name, amateur, sick with Covid for 2 days, unvaccinated athlete. My last 5K was 26:57 on Thanksgiving morning. Next 5K will be on May 5.

Let's see how I do. You reimburse me for the entry fee if I beat my Turkey Trot time. Deal ?

I have not diagnosed you with long COVID. No comparison to Chokervic

What a joke. Proof by assertion is your only attempt to respond. You really should be disappointed in yourself that you can’t come up with a more reasonable defense.

Actually, my reasoning is extremely logical and pretty straight line. A lab that is known to be doing gain of function research and known to be doing that research on bat viruses and known to have viruses closest to any identified in the wild as being next to SARS Cov-2 and known to have documented safety issues allows a virus to escape. This is so incredibly likely that it's almost not a matter of IF this would happen but when it would happen and maybe even how often it would have happened in the past.

I've already explained how easy it would be for the virus to surface at a wet market instead of at the lab itself. It would be very unlikely for an infected person to spread it to other people in the lab because when they're in the lab they're wearing safety equipment masks and even pressurized suits. On the other hand, when that infected person travel to the Wuhan wet Market it would be very easy to spread the virus by touching something because wet markets are notorious as being breeding grounds for the spread of viral infections. They are damp, poorly ventilated, and poorly lighted, and have a high density of people. We now know that the virus can survive for an extended period of time outside of a human host under the right conditions and those conditions would exist and certain locations in a wet Market.

Next, we know that no similar furin cleavage sites exist in animals and it would be extremely unlikely for such a sight to develop in an animal since it is not needed for animal to animal transmission and there has not been a single animal in the entire planet to have been proven to have this virus in 2019. Not a single animal. Not a single animal on a farm providing animals to the wet Market. No signs of any virus residue in any farms that raised animals that appeared in this market.

Next, when you apply the Occam's razor test, it points to lab leak. When you apply the follow the money test, it strongly points to a lab leak. On the other hand the zoonosis theory basically is the equivalent of scientists shrugging their shoulders and saying well it happens and it's happened at wet markets before so that's what happened here while simultaneously ignoring literally dozens of smoking guns that point to the lab leak by saying they are merely coincidences.

I could believe one coincidence or even two or three, but to believe the Zoonosis Theory for the emergence of covid-19 you would have to ignore literally dozens of unlikely events as being merely coincidences.

When I read the summaries of the root claim debate over the origins of covid-19, I did not see a single compelling argument that would swing me over to the zoonosis theory. Peter was brilliant, however. He presented some statistics as facts when they were actually mere speculations. At other times he simply ignored rootclaim arguments and misdirected rootclaim and the judges to a different point. I see how it could be easy to miss in real time in a verbal debate, but when reading the text it was pretty obvious that it was a brilliant step to just move past a point he could not defend and get both root claim and the judges thinking about something else.