On 26/12/2021 11:53, Spike wrote:
>
> On 24/12/2021 17:41, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 24/12/2021 11:55, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> In plain non-scientific English the brochure is /not/ evidence for your
>>> /supposition/ that 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'
>>> means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words).
>>
>> Read it again, properly this time, the only difference between the
>> closest virus found in Laos and those that began the pandemic in Wuhan
>> is the FCS, a single mutation away ...
>
>> https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
>
> *EIGHT* out of the ten References are to the Institut Pasteur work. One
> is to a vet school and one from the Laotians. IOW, it's not comprehensive.

You missed the most important one, the one to the original paper, still
quoted below.

>> ... and to avoid you trying to deny it as a puff-piece, here's the
>> preprint paper itself, not that I think you have a snowball's chance in
>> hell of ever understanding it ...
>>
>> https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1
>>
>> "Our findings therefore indicate that bat-borne SARS-CoV-2-like viruses
>> potentially infectious for humans circulate in Rhinolophus spp. in the
>> Indochinese peninsula."
>
> How much weaselling can you find in the claim that "SARS-CoV-2-related
> viruses capable of infecting human cells discovered in bats in northern
> Laos"?
>
> But there's no weaselling here:

Self-contradiction.

> "But the scientists showed that the
> viruses do not have a furin cleavage site, as is found in SARS-CoV-2.
> Furin is a protease that cleaves the spike protein, allowing the virus
> membrane to fuse with the human cell membrane.[1] This cleavage site
> plays a key role in mediating viral entry into respiratory epithelial
> cells."

Exactly as I said above, a single mutation away from SARS-CoV-2.

> Plus: "The identification of these new coronaviruses opens up new
> avenues for investigation into host-virus interactions and could improve
> our understanding of the factors that led to the emergence of the
> SARS-CoV-2 virus" which reads as "Gimme gimme gimme funding..."

Reads to me as scientific speak for: "SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from
bats, not a lab!"

>> As above, I get it from decent sources,
>
> ....such as the BBC, the media, and anecdata.

No, that's you, we are currently discussing evidence from a scientific
paper, just one of several creditable sources linked to by me, showing
that SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from a natural source, whereas by
contrast we're still waiting for *EVIDENCE* justifying your contention
that the virus escaped from the lab, all we've had so far being "the
[dodgiest] media, and anecdata".

>> including original scientific
>> papers, which, as this thread has clearly demonstrated
>
> So far you've only referred to one limited paper. Where is the rest of
> your comprehensive Literature Search?

As has already been proven, initially you were too lazy to read this
one, so it's not surprising that you've forgotten all the others that
you were also too lazy to read, which is your problem not mine, and
therefore if you want to continue this discussion you must provide the
solution by going back and looking them all up. From a rough
calculation, I've given around 30 links to some source or other,
possibly as many as 40, but as I know some of them had to be repeated
because of you're being too lazy to read them, and a few were supplied
by others, I'm happy to settle for around 30, but even only 20, less
than half the links counted, would be approximately 20 times more than
what you have produced that is actually in any way relevant to the
question of whether the virus arose naturally or escaped from a lab.

>> are clearly too
>> complicated to understand for someone who's only known enthusiasm,
>> though expertise even just in that unknown and therefore open to doubt,
>> is contemporary dance. How's Denialism By Dance coming on? Twisted a
>> real ankle yet, to match the metaphorical falling flat on your face that
>> you're doing in every post you make here?
>
> What a vulgar little man you are.

Although not originally from Yorkshire, like its inhabitants I merely
call a spade, a spade, and a liar, a liar.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 26/12/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
> On 26/12/2021 11:53, Spike wrote:
>> On 24/12/2021 17:41, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 24/12/2021 11:55, Spike wrote:

>>>> In plain non-scientific English the brochure is /not/ evidence for your
>>>> /supposition/ that 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'
>>>> means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words).

>>> Read it again, properly this time, the only difference between the
>>> closest virus found in Laos and those that began the pandemic in Wuhan
>>> is the FCS, a single mutation away ...

>>> https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos

>> *EIGHT* out of the ten References are to the Institut Pasteur work. One
>> is to a vet school and one from the Laotians. IOW, it's not comprehensive.

> You missed the most important one, the one to the original paper, still
> quoted below.

>>> ... and to avoid you trying to deny it as a puff-piece, here's the
>>> preprint paper itself, not that I think you have a snowball's chance in
>>> hell of ever understanding it ...

>>> https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1

>>> "Our findings therefore indicate that bat-borne SARS-CoV-2-like viruses
>>> potentially infectious for humans circulate in Rhinolophus spp. in the
>>> Indochinese peninsula."

>> How much weaselling can you find in the claim that "SARS-CoV-2-related
>> viruses capable of infecting human cells discovered in bats in northern
>> Laos"?

>> But there's no weaselling here:

>> "But the scientists showed that the
>> viruses do not have a furin cleavage site, as is found in SARS-CoV-2.
>> Furin is a protease that cleaves the spike protein, allowing the virus
>> membrane to fuse with the human cell membrane.[1] This cleavage site
>> plays a key role in mediating viral entry into respiratory epithelial

> Exactly as I said above, a single mutation away from SARS-CoV-2.

So, no scientists are claiming that, or you would have trumpeted it.

>> Plus: "The identification of these new coronaviruses opens up new
>> avenues for investigation into host-virus interactions and could improve
>> our understanding of the factors that led to the emergence of the
>> SARS-CoV-2 virus" which reads as "Gimme gimme gimme funding..."

> Reads to me as scientific speak for: "SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from
> bats, not a lab!"

IYHO, of course.

>>> As above, I get it from decent sources,

>> ....such as the BBC, the media, and anecdata.

> No, that's you, we are currently discussing evidence from a scientific
> paper, just one of several creditable sources linked to by me, showing
> that SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from a natural source, whereas by
> contrast we're still waiting for *EVIDENCE* justifying your contention
> that the virus escaped from the lab, all we've had so far being "the
> [dodgiest] media, and anecdata".

And I'm still waiting for you to publish the list of papers, which of
course would cover all the field, that formed the opinion you so
trenchantly defend.

>>> including original scientific
>>> papers, which, as this thread has clearly demonstrated

>> So far you've only referred to one limited paper. Where is the rest of
>> your comprehensive Literature Search?

> As has already been proven, initially you were too lazy to read this
> one, so it's not surprising that you've forgotten all the others that
> you were also too lazy to read, which is your problem not mine, and
> therefore if you want to continue this discussion you must provide the
> solution by going back and looking them all up. From a rough
> calculation, I've given around 30 links to some source or other,
> possibly as many as 40, but as I know some of them had to be repeated
> because of you're being too lazy to read them, and a few were supplied
> by others, I'm happy to settle for around 30, but even only 20, less
> than half the links counted, would be approximately 20 times more than
> what you have produced that is actually in any way relevant to the
> question of whether the virus arose naturally or escaped from a lab.

But, where is your list of papers, which of course would cover all the
field, that formed the opinion you so trenchantly defend.

>>> are clearly too
>>> complicated to understand for someone who's only known enthusiasm,
>>> though expertise even just in that unknown and therefore open to doubt,
>>> is contemporary dance. How's Denialism By Dance coming on? Twisted a
>>> real ankle yet, to match the metaphorical falling flat on your face that
>>> you're doing in every post you make here?

>> What a vulgar little man you are.

> Although not originally from Yorkshire, like its inhabitants I merely
> call a spade, a spade, and a liar, a liar.

And doubtless there's a Yorkshire word for a vulgar little man, someone
who is 'nobbut piss and wind'.

Publish your list, which of course would cover all the field, and be damned.

--
Spike

On 28/12/2021 09:27, Spike wrote:
>
> On 26/12/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 26/12/2021 11:53, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> "But the scientists showed that the
>>> viruses do not have a furin cleavage site, as is found in SARS-CoV-2.
>>> Furin is a protease that cleaves the spike protein, allowing the virus
>>> membrane to fuse with the human cell membrane.[1] This cleavage site
>>> plays a key role in mediating viral entry into respiratory epithelial
>>
>> Exactly as I said above, a single mutation away from SARS-CoV-2.
>
> So, no scientists are claiming that, or you would have trumpeted it.

Keep up at the back there, they are saying that, as still quoted by you
above.

>>> Plus: "The identification of these new coronaviruses opens up new
>>> avenues for investigation into host-virus interactions and could improve
>>> our understanding of the factors that led to the emergence of the
>>> SARS-CoV-2 virus" which reads as "Gimme gimme gimme funding..."
>>
>> Reads to me as scientific speak for: "SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from
>> bats, not a lab!"
>
> IYHO, of course.

In the opinion of someone following the evidence without a particular
axe to grind.

>>>> As above, I get it from decent sources,
>>>
>>> ....such as the BBC, the media, and anecdata.
>>
>> No, that's you, we are currently discussing evidence from a scientific
>> paper, just one of several creditable sources linked to by me, showing
>> that SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from a natural source, whereas by
>> contrast we're still waiting for *EVIDENCE* justifying your contention
>> that the virus escaped from the lab, all we've had so far being "the
>> [dodgiest] media, and anecdata".
>
> And I'm still waiting for you to publish the list of papers, which of
> course would cover all the field, that formed the opinion you so
> trenchantly defend.

Then you're still waiting for someone else to make up for your own
laziness, and that's never going to happen - the laziness of your not
bothering to read them when first provided; a quick check finds 45 hits
for links in my replies in this thread; some will be links in quote
sections, and therefore counted multiple times, but it's a reasonable
assumption that a minimum of around 15-20 links have been provided by
me, very probably rather more; if you were too lazy to read all this
material, then that's your problem, not mine, and you must provide the
solution by yourself reading back through the thread.

>>>> including original scientific
>>>> papers, which, as this thread has clearly demonstrated
>>>
>>> So far you've only referred to one limited paper. Where is the rest of
>>> your comprehensive Literature Search?
>>
>> As has already been proven, initially you were too lazy to read this
>> one, so it's not surprising that you've forgotten all the others that
>> you were also too lazy to read, which is your problem not mine, and
>> therefore if you want to continue this discussion you must provide the
>> solution by going back and looking them all up. From a rough
>> calculation, I've given around 30 links to some source or other,
>> possibly as many as 40, but as I know some of them had to be repeated
>> because of you're being too lazy to read them, and a few were supplied
>> by others, I'm happy to settle for around 30, but even only 20, less
>> than half the links counted, would be approximately 20 times more than
>> what you have produced that is actually in any way relevant to the
>> question of whether the virus arose naturally or escaped from a lab.
>
> But, where is your list of papers, which of course would cover all the
> field, that formed the opinion you so trenchantly defend.

See above, do your own fucking work to make up for for your own arrogant
laziness.

>>>> are clearly too
>>>> complicated to understand for someone who's only known enthusiasm,
>>>> though expertise even just in that unknown and therefore open to doubt,
>>>> is contemporary dance. How's Denialism By Dance coming on? Twisted a
>>>> real ankle yet, to match the metaphorical falling flat on your face that
>>>> you're doing in every post you make here?
>>>
>>> What a vulgar little man you are.
>>
>> Although not originally from Yorkshire, like its inhabitants I merely
>> call a spade, a spade, and a liar, a liar.
>
> And doubtless there's a Yorkshire word for a vulgar little man, someone
> who is 'nobbut piss and wind'.

Describes you exactly.

> Publish your list, which of course would cover all the field, and be damned.

Links have already been given up thread; go back and read them and
provide some counter *EVIDENCE* of your own, or if as usual you have
nothing useful to say, just shut the fuck up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/12/2021 13:26, Java Jive wrote:
> On 28/12/2021 09:27, Spike wrote:
>> On 26/12/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 26/12/2021 11:53, Spike wrote:

>>>> "But the scientists showed that the
>>>> viruses do not have a furin cleavage site, as is found in SARS-CoV-2.
>>>> Furin is a protease that cleaves the spike protein, allowing the virus
>>>> membrane to fuse with the human cell membrane.[1] This cleavage site
>>>> plays a key role in mediating viral entry into respiratory epithelial

>>> Exactly as I said above, a single mutation away from SARS-CoV-2.

>> So, no scientists are claiming that, or you would have trumpeted it.

> Keep up at the back there, they are saying that, as still quoted by you
> above.

No they do not. They have proposed no mechanism. You have assumed one to
get the 'answer' you want.

>>> Reads to me as scientific speak for: "SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from
>>> bats, not a lab!"

>> IYHO, of course.

> In the opinion of someone following the evidence without a particular
> axe to grind.

You have just shown above that you manufacture evidence to align with
your preconceptions.

>> And I'm still waiting for you to publish the list of papers, which of
>> course would cover all the field, that formed the opinion you so
>> trenchantly defend.

> Then you're still waiting for someone else to make up for your own
> laziness, and that's never going to happen and you must provide the> solution by yourself reading back through the thread.

No. You are the one making the claims. You provide the evidence.

I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking for
your 'evidence', such as it is. /You/ made the claims, /you/ provide it.
That's how science works.

> See above, do your own fucking work to make up for for your own arrogant
> laziness.

Science works by authors defending their claims.

> Links have already been given up thread; go back and read them and
> provide some counter *EVIDENCE* of your own, or if as usual you have
> nothing useful to say, just shut the fuck up.

I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking for
your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not be seen
as such by others, so asking others to 'prove' your claims by going
through all your posts may well result in far fewer references than you
believe you have given. /You/ made the claims, /you/ provide the
evidence. That's how science works.

What you have provided so far is laughable.

--
Spike

On 30/12/2021 11:04, Spike wrote:
>
> I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking for
> your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not be seen
> as such by others, so asking others to 'prove' your claims by going
> through all your posts may well result in far fewer references than you
> believe you have given. /You/ made the claims, /you/ provide the
> evidence. That's how science works.

If you're too fucking lazy to do the work, stop complaining.

> What you have provided so far is laughable.

What I have provided up thread is *EVIDENCE*, whereas what you have
provided is zilch, nowt, nothing, nada, zero, nought. Let's see some
*EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up, shut up, or be ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 30/12/2021 11:40, Java Jive wrote:
> On 30/12/2021 11:04, Spike wrote:

>> I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking for
>> your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not be seen
>> as such by others, so asking others to 'prove' your claims by going
>> through all your posts may well result in far fewer references than you
>> believe you have given. /You/ made the claims, /you/ provide the
>> evidence. That's how science works.

> If you're too fucking lazy to do the work, stop complaining.

No-one is under any obligation to find and use your 'evidence' - such as
it is - to prove your case. That is for you to do.

>> What you have provided so far is laughable.

> What I have provided up thread is *EVIDENCE*, whereas what you have
> provided is zilch, nowt, nothing, nada, zero, nought. Let's see some
> *EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up, shut up, or be ignored.

You have so little idea of how science works, it's frightening. No-one
is under any obligation to find and use your 'evidence' - such as it is
- to prove your case. That is for you to do. We are still waiting, more
than 200 of your posts later.

--
Spike

On 11:04 30 Dec 2021, Spike said:
> On 28/12/2021 13:26, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Links have already been given up thread; go back and read them and
>> provide some counter *EVIDENCE* of your own, or if as usual you
>> have nothing useful to say, just shut the fuck up.
>
> I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking
> for your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not
> be seen as such by others,

Speaking as one of those "others" who occasionally browses this thread,
Java appears to have made a reasonably strong case. From my previous
discussions with you, some of your "facts" are closer to fabrications and
can not be relied upon.

> so asking others to 'prove' your claims
> by going through all your posts may well result in far fewer
> references than you believe you have given. /You/ made the claims,
> /you/ provide the evidence. That's how science works.
>
> What you have provided so far is laughable.

On 30/12/2021 16:46, Pamela wrote:
> On 11:04 30 Dec 2021, Spike said:
>> On 28/12/2021 13:26, Java Jive wrote:

>>> [...]

>>> Links have already been given up thread; go back and read them and
>>> provide some counter *EVIDENCE* of your own, or if as usual you
>>> have nothing useful to say, just shut the fuck up.

>> I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking
>> for your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not
>> be seen as such by others,

> Speaking as one of those "others" who occasionally browses this thread,
> Java appears to have made a reasonably strong case. From my previous
> discussions with you, some of your "facts" are closer to fabrications and
> can not be relied upon.

Java Jive wants me to prove his claims.

That isn't going to happen. He made them, he backs them up.

--
Spike

In article <sqk5s7$87b$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 30/12/2021 11:04, Spike wrote:
> >
> > I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking for
> > your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not be seen
> > as such by others, so asking others to 'prove' your claims by going
> > through all your posts may well result in far fewer references than you
> > believe you have given. /You/ made the claims, /you/ provide the
> > evidence. That's how science works.

> If you're too fucking lazy to do the work, stop complaining.

JJ, it became clear some time ago that 'Spike' is behaving like a bot or
worker in a troll farm. He simply dismisses things without reading them, so
you are wasting your time. The above is a classic example. He dismisses
what you presented on the basis that he *assumes* it "*may* not be seen as
such by someone else"- but hasn't read it, so actually has nae clue. Just
assertions made in wilful[1] ignorance to wind up a response so he can make
another vacuous posting.

Jim

[1] Assuming he is a human rather than an AS (Artificial Stupidity) bot.
:-)

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 30/12/2021 17:22, Spike wrote:
>
> Java Jive wants me to prove his claims.

No, I don't, because I don't need to, because I've already proved my
claims with up to 45 different links (though some of those will be in
quote blocks, and therefore possibly not originally my own, or else
repetitions of previous links). I want you to prove *YOUR" claim that
the pandemic virus originated in a WIV lab, and so far you have
manifestly failed to come with any convincing evidence for that claim.

Your problem further is that, as we have now had some definite proof of,
you didn't bother to read my links at the time, and are now trying to
deny their existence, and further that I'm perfectly content to amuse
myself letting you carry on making an arse of yourself in this manner
because the record of this thread is there for others to see, and as
others still reading it have agreed, it supports me, not you.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 30/12/2021 18:04, Java Jive wrote:
> On 30/12/2021 17:22, Spike wrote:

>> Java Jive wants me to prove his claims.

> No, I don't, because I don't need to, because I've already proved my
> claims with up to 45 different links (though some of those will be in
> quote blocks, and therefore possibly not originally my own, or else
> repetitions of previous links). I want you to prove *YOUR" claim that
> the pandemic virus originated in a WIV lab, and so far you have
> manifestly failed to come with any convincing evidence for that claim.

> Your problem further is that, as we have now had some definite proof of,
> you didn't bother to read my links at the time, and are now trying to
> deny their existence, and further that I'm perfectly content to amuse
> myself letting you carry on making an arse of yourself in this manner
> because the record of this thread is there for others to see, and as
> others still reading it have agreed, it supports me, not you.

> When you're in a hole, stop digging.

When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.

--
Spike

On 31/12/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
>
> On 30/12/2021 18:04, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> When you're in a hole, stop digging.
>
> When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.

When you're in a hole, stop lying.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <j389h0Fo8f1U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.

Interesting misuse of the word "prove" to mean: "actually read the
references and try to understand them". For obvious reasons, an AS or troll
can't/won't do this.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 11:57 31 Dec 2021, Spike said:
> On 30/12/2021 18:04, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 30/12/2021 17:22, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive wants me to prove his claims.
>>
>> No, I don't, because I don't need to, because I've already proved
>> my claims with up to 45 different links (though some of those will
>> be in quote blocks, and therefore possibly not originally my own,
>> or else repetitions of previous links). I want you to prove *YOUR"
>> claim that the pandemic virus originated in a WIV lab, and so far
>> you have manifestly failed to come with any convincing evidence for
>> that claim.
>>
>> Your problem further is that, as we have now had some definite
>> proof of, you didn't bother to read my links at the time, and are
>> now trying to deny their existence, and further that I'm perfectly
>> content to amuse myself letting you carry on making an arse of
>> yourself in this manner because the record of this thread is there
>> for others to see, and as others still reading it have agreed, it
>> supports me, not you.
>
>> When you're in a hole, stop digging.
>
> When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.

Sneaky swerve there, Spike. It probably works if reader isn't paying
attention.

On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
> On 31/12/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:

>> When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.

> When you're in a hole, stop lying.

In the tedious 204 messages that I can find of yours in this 549-post
thread, you've put forward the following links as evidence for your
entrenched position:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
http://www.filippalentzos.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data

These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings. After
that, you degenerate into calling people 'unbalanced' and their postings
'hyposhite' or 'emotive bullshit', with the odd 'liar' thrown in
doubtless for good measure - quite why you took this approach to
defending your position remains unclear. It appeared to be a triumph of
hope over experience to continue searching your postings for 'links'.

Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC, an organisation
not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.

Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia, again an organisation not noted for
its impartial reporting, and certainly not as a publisher of
peer-reviewed science.

The remainder of your links seem to be either to business publications
or coronavirus case statistics.

Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
"Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between
SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the
difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence*
between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than previously *estimated".

This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your entire
Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific research
papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your list seems to
be somewhat lacking.

In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan virus,
your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the
peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
it that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated" pathway from the
bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
mutations.

HTH

--
Spike

In article <j3d9soFmsr1U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC, an organisation
> not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
> regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.

> Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia, again an organisation not noted for
> its impartial reporting, and certainly not as a publisher of
> peer-reviewed science.

Again, assertions based on sweeping presumptions. Not on actually studying
the material. And fails to mention other URLs which were in the list.

So, again, an AS/troll dodge.

That was followed by picking one detail out of context from one reference.

It also rather depends on who is making the sweeping "not noted for"
opinions. And if they were also doing so on the basis of not bothering to
read or understand the content - or, indeed, have a clue about real
science.

In reality, when reading Wikipedia, if you have any grasp of relevant
science it is generally clear enough when content is good or poor. The snag
is the need to read - and to have some clue already about relevant science.
The difficulty is that a page may have been 'edited' by someone whose
approach is like 'Spike's. :-) So, yes, Wikipedia may need to be used with
care and alongside other sources as cross-checks.

I realise that some dismiss the BBC on the basis that they *avoid* actually
examining its science output for fear that it will clash with what their
*political* views make them want to believe.

However when it comes to science I've generally found them pretty reliable.
Albeit in TV features, sometimes simplifying a lot. Less so, though, on R4
in specialist programmes like "More or Less" or the main Science series
like "Inside Science" or "Life Scientific". However I've done that by
listening and judging the content in the context of related science I've
known. Not on the basis of a waving away anything with "BBC" in the URL.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 02/01/2022 09:34, Spike wrote:
>
> On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> When you're in a hole, stop lying.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
> http://www.filippalentzos.com/
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
> https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data
>
> These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings.

So do not include at least 24 more, though I have admitted that some of
the total of 45 counted may be in quote sections and therefore
repetitions of the above or of links provided by others, the latter of
which actually I think 1 or 2 of the above may be anyway.

[Snip hypocrisy]

> Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC,

6 of the 10 were links to BBC science programmes, which give details of
the original source scientific papers both in their reports and via
links on each programme episode webpage. The other 4 are to news
reports, which likewise commonly contain links to source and related
material.

> an organisation
> not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
> regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.

Your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were established
fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and biased opinion.

> Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia,

Likewise Wikipedia pages contain links to source material, including
where relevant published scientific papers.

> again an organisation not noted for
> its impartial reporting, and certainly not as a publisher of
> peer-reviewed science.

Again, your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were
established fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and
biased opinion.

> The remainder of your links seem to be either to business publications
> or coronavirus case statistics.

Which were relevant in some way to the point being made. For example:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp

"A US researcher who worked with a Wuhan virology lab gives 4 reasons
why a coronavirus leak would be extremely unlikely"

> Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
> difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
> "Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between
> SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the
> difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence*
> between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than previously *estimated".

So clearly still you haven't found them all, because you haven't
included the most recent one discussed of the French research in Laos,
as linked again below, and ...

https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos

> This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your entire
> Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific research
> papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your list seems to
> be somewhat lacking.

.... even just the 21 you've bothered to find above, which we know cannot
be all because there is at least the one above known to be missing from
your list, is 21 times the number of links to relevant research that
*YOU* have supplied! Anyone in the world with even a glowing fag-end of
human intelligence would have recognised by now that 21-1 is a lost
scoreline - in plain English, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

> In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan virus,
> your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the
> peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
> it that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
> prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated" pathway from the
> bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
> have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
> very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
> mutations.

Now that you've bothered to do the work, which you claimed you'd never
do, and found (some of) the links I've previously given, incidentally
thereby self-contradicting your own previous assertions that I hadn't
provided any, this time around go back and actually read or listen to
them, including if you wish original scientific papers linked from the
above.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09:34 2 Jan 2022, Spike said:
> On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 31/12/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>> When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.
>>
>> When you're in a hole, stop lying.
>
> In the tedious 204 messages that I can find of yours in this
> 549-post thread, you've put forward the following links as evidence
> for your entrenched position:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
> http://www.filippalentzos.com/
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-
> needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19
> _misinformation#Virus_origin_hy potheses
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-
> from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
> https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data
>
> These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings. After
> that, you degenerate into calling people 'unbalanced' and their
> postings 'hyposhite' or 'emotive bullshit', with the odd 'liar'
> thrown in doubtless for good measure - quite why you took this
> approach to defending your position remains unclear. It appeared to
> be a triumph of hope over experience to continue searching your
> postings for 'links'.
>
> Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC, an
> organisation not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is
> certainly not regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science
> papers.
>
> Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia, again an organisation not noted
> for its impartial reporting, and certainly not as a publisher of
> peer-reviewed science.
>
> The remainder of your links seem to be either to business
> publications or coronavirus case statistics.
>
> Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
> difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
> "Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides
> between SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV;
> RaTG13), the difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the*
> *divergence* between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than
> previously *estimated".
>
> This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your
> entire Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific
> research papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your
> list seems to be somewhat lacking.
>
> In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan
> virus, your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to
> include the peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are
> currently missing from it that cover the totality of the topic, and
> especially the ones that prove the *much* *larger* than previously
> *estimated" pathway from the bat SARS-related coronavirus
> (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you have merely asserted as
> your personal opinion - which is based on the very limited media
> sources you have so far mentioned - were natural mutations.
>
> HTH

Oh my goodness! That post says far more about your obsessionality
than you may have intended.

It also suggsts you have too much time on your hands, which might
explain why you are able to devote yourself to so much trolling.

On 02/01/2022 18:02, Java Jive wrote:
> On 02/01/2022 09:34, Spike wrote:
>> On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:

>>> When you're in a hole, stop lying.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
>> http://www.filippalentzos.com/
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
>> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
>> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
>> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
>> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
>> https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data

>> These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings.

> So do not include at least 24 more, though I have admitted that some of
> the total of 45 counted may be in quote sections and therefore
> repetitions of the above or of links provided by others, the latter of
> which actually I think 1 or 2 of the above may be anyway.

You have only yourself to blame. When your posts descended to calling
people unbalanced, liars, and your declarations of hyposhite, it was
time to stop searching.

>> Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC,

> 6 of the 10 were links to BBC science programmes, which give details of
> the original source scientific papers both in their reports and via
> links on each programme episode webpage. The other 4 are to news
> reports, which likewise commonly contain links to source and related
> material.

Then you could have chosen to provide the original scientific papers -
which, by the way, you have never claimed to have read - instead of
being evasive and gratuitously abusive.

>> an organisation
>> not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
>> regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.

> Your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were established
> fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and biased opinion.

You don't seem to have the critical gift of being able to see what is
not being said, a vital component of determining what the programme's
agenda really is.

>> Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia,

> Likewise Wikipedia pages contain links to source material, including
> where relevant published scientific papers.

Like the BBC, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of peer-reviewed
scientific publications, which is what you have been demanding others
supply.

> Again, your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were
> established fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and
> biased opinion.

Like your stance over the origins of the Wuhan virus?

>> The remainder of your links seem to be either to business publications
>> or coronavirus case statistics.

> Which were relevant in some way to the point being made. For example:

> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp

A US researcher who worked with a Wuhan virology lab gives 4 reasons
> why a coronavirus leak would be extremely unlikely"

That is NOT peer-reviewed science, it's merely anecdata.

>> Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
>> difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
>> "Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between
>> SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the
>> difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence*
>> between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than previously *estimated".

> So clearly still you haven't found them all, because you haven't
> included the most recent one discussed of the French research in Laos,
> as linked again below, and ...

> https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos

"press-documents" is NOT peer-reviewed scientific publication.

>> This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your entire
>> Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific research
>> papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your list seems to
>> be somewhat lacking.

> ... even just the 21 you've bothered to find above, which we know cannot
> be all because there is at least the one above known to be missing from
> your list, is 21 times the number of links to relevant research that
> *YOU* have supplied! Anyone in the world with even a glowing fag-end of
> human intelligence would have recognised by now that 21-1 is a lost
> scoreline - in plain English, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

The real lesson here is for you. If you want a discussion about science,
stop using abusive terms such as 'unbalanced', 'liar', or 'hyposhite'.
There are other opinions than yours, and your opinions do not over-ride
those of others. It is not the fault of others if they they see the
issue in a different light than you.

>> In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan virus,
>> your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the
>> peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
>> it that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
>> prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated" pathway from the
>> bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
>> have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
>> very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
>> mutations.

> Now that you've bothered to do the work, which you claimed you'd never
> do, and found (some of) the links I've previously given, incidentally
> thereby self-contradicting your own previous assertions that I hadn't
> provided any, this time around go back and actually read or listen to
> them, including if you wish original scientific papers linked from the
> above.

Your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the
peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
it, that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated* pathway from the
bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
mutations.

--
Spike

On 02/01/2022 19:07, Pamela wrote:
> On 09:34 2 Jan 2022, Spike said:
>> On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 31/12/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:

>>>> When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.

>>> When you're in a hole, stop lying.

>> In the tedious 204 messages that I can find of yours in this
>> 549-post thread, you've put forward the following links as evidence
>> for your entrenched position:

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
>> http://www.filippalentzos.com/
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
>> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
>> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-
>> needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19
>> _misinformation#Virus_origin_hy potheses
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
>> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-
>> from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
>> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
>> https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data

>> These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings. After
>> that, you degenerate into calling people 'unbalanced' and their
>> postings 'hyposhite' or 'emotive bullshit', with the odd 'liar'
>> thrown in doubtless for good measure - quite why you took this
>> approach to defending your position remains unclear. It appeared to
>> be a triumph of hope over experience to continue searching your
>> postings for 'links'.

>> Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC, an
>> organisation not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is
>> certainly not regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science
>> papers.

>> Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia, again an organisation not noted
>> for its impartial reporting, and certainly not as a publisher of
>> peer-reviewed science.

>> The remainder of your links seem to be either to business
>> publications or coronavirus case statistics.

>> Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
>> difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
>> "Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides
>> between SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV;
>> RaTG13), the difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the*
>> *divergence* between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than
>> previously *estimated".

>> This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your
>> entire Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific
>> research papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your
>> list seems to be somewhat lacking.

>> In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan
>> virus, your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to
>> include the peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are
>> currently missing from it that cover the totality of the topic, and
>> especially the ones that prove the *much* *larger* than previously
>> *estimated" pathway from the bat SARS-related coronavirus
>> (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you have merely asserted as
>> your personal opinion - which is based on the very limited media
>> sources you have so far mentioned - were natural mutations.

>> HTH

> Oh my goodness! That post says far more about your obsessionality
> than you may have intended.

Au contraire, it says far more about Java Jive's obsessionality than he
may have intended.

> It also suggsts you have too much time on your hands, which might
> explain why you are able to devote yourself to so much trolling.

If I wanted to troll, I'd use your short-comment sniping style.

--
Spike

On 03/01/2022 10:36, Spike wrote:
> On 02/01/2022 18:02, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 02/01/2022 09:34, Spike wrote:
>>> On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>> When you're in a hole, stop lying.
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
>>> http://www.filippalentzos.com/
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
>>> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
>>> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
>>> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
>>> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
>>> https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data
>>>
>>> These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings.
>>
>> So do not include at least 24 more, though I have admitted that some of
>> the total of 45 counted may be in quote sections and therefore
>> repetitions of the above or of links provided by others, the latter of
>> which actually I think 1 or 2 of the above may be anyway.
>
> You have only yourself to blame. When your posts descended to calling
> people unbalanced, liars, and your declarations of hyposhite, it was
> time to stop searching.

HYPOSHITE! Your own posts have rarely including any references to any
supporting *EVIDENCE* whatsoever, and most, I think all but one and that
may actually have come from someone else, of what you have produced has
not even been relevant, yet here you are still trolling!

>>> Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC,
>>
>> 6 of the 10 were links to BBC science programmes, which give details of
>> the original source scientific papers both in their reports and via
>> links on each programme episode webpage. The other 4 are to news
>> reports, which likewise commonly contain links to source and related
>> material.
>
> Then you could have chosen to provide the original scientific papers -
> which, by the way, you have never claimed to have read - instead of
> being evasive and gratuitously abusive.

I link to the BBC's reporting largely to suit the level of those I'm
arguing against, because they report in plainer English what is said in
scientific papers in more obscure science-speak English, which probably
trolls like you would not understand.

>>> an organisation
>>> not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
>>> regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.
>
>> Your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were established
>> fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and biased opinion.
>
> You don't seem to have the critical gift of being able to see what is
> not being said, a vital component of determining what the programme's
> agenda really is.

I have sufficient of this gift to be aware that you are *STILL* not
supplying any *EVIDENCE* to support your claim that SARS-CoV-2
originated in a lab rather than in the wild as scientists believe, yet
are still arguing here.

>>> Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia,
>
>> Likewise Wikipedia pages contain links to source material, including
>> where relevant published scientific papers.
>
> Like the BBC, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of peer-reviewed
> scientific publications, which is what you have been demanding others
> supply.

Where either supply links to supporting scientific publications, by what
mythical mechanism are those publications supposed suddenly to be
worthless just because they have been linked to by the BBC or Wikipedia?

>> Again, your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were
>> established fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and
>> biased opinion.
>
> Like your stance over the origins of the Wuhan virus?

My stance on SARS-CoV-2 is supported by the science, yours is not.

>>> The remainder of your links seem to be either to business publications
>>> or coronavirus case statistics.
>>
>> Which were relevant in some way to the point being made. For example:
>>
>> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
>>
>> A US researcher who worked with a Wuhan virology lab gives 4 reasons
>> why a coronavirus leak would be extremely unlikely"
>
> That is NOT peer-reviewed science, it's merely anecdata.

It was highly relevant to the point being made, and was still way
stronger *EVIDENCE* than anything you have produced on the subject.

>> Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
>>> difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
>>> "Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between
>>> SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the
>>> difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence*
>>> between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than previously *estimated".
>
>> So clearly still you haven't found them all, because you haven't
>> included the most recent one discussed of the French research in Laos,
>> as linked again below, and ...
>
>> https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
>
> "press-documents" is NOT peer-reviewed scientific publication.

As you have been told before that the original paper is linked from
within the report, that is in effect another lie.

>>> This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your entire
>>> Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific research
>>> papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your list seems to
>>> be somewhat lacking.
>>
>> ... even just the 21 you've bothered to find above, which we know cannot
>> be all because there is at least the one above known to be missing from
>> your list, is 21 times the number of links to relevant research that
>> *YOU* have supplied! Anyone in the world with even a glowing fag-end of
>> human intelligence would have recognised by now that 21-1 is a lost
>> scoreline - in plain English, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!
>
> The real lesson here is for you. If you want a discussion about science,
> stop using abusive terms such as 'unbalanced', 'liar', or 'hyposhite'.

The real lesson here is for you, I call a spade 'a spade', a liar 'a
liar', and a hypocritical time-wasting shit 'a hyposhite', if you want
to avoid these terms being applied to you, learn to debate in a rational
fashion; start by accepting that 1-21 is a lost scoreline and stop
trolling when you've run out of ammunition.

> There are other opinions than yours, and your opinions do not over-ride
> those of others. It is not the fault of others if they they see the
> issue in a different light than you.

It is the fault of others if they ignore rational evidence and persist
in trolling irrational beliefs, as you are *STILL* doing here.

>>> In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan virus,
>>> your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the
>>> peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
>>> it that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
>>> prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated" pathway from the
>>> bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
>>> have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
>>> very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
>>> mutations.
>>
>> Now that you've bothered to do the work, which you claimed you'd never
>> do, and found (some of) the links I've previously given, incidentally
>> thereby self-contradicting your own previous assertions that I hadn't
>> provided any, this time around go back and actually read or listen to
>> them, including if you wish original scientific papers linked from the
>> above.
>
> Your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the
> peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
> it, that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
> prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated* pathway from the
> bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
> have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
> very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
> mutations.

In article <XnsAE13C2A04B95237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

(Snip Spike's ramblings.)

> Oh my goodness! That post says far more about your obsessionality than
> you may have intended.

> It also suggsts you have too much time on your hands, which might
> explain why you are able to devote yourself to so much trolling.

Both behaviour patterns might also be a sign of an AS, rather than an
ass... or arse. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j3g1tmF8dhhU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> Then you could have chosen to provide the original scientific papers -
> which, by the way, you have never claimed to have read - instead of
> being evasive and gratuitously abusive.

Irony = (def) "Contains Iron". :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 03/01/2022 11:26, Java Jive wrote:
> On 03/01/2022 10:36, Spike wrote:
>> On 02/01/2022 18:02, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 02/01/2022 09:34, Spike wrote:

>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
>>>> http://www.filippalentzos.com/
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
>>>> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
>>>> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
>>>> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
>>>> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
>>>> https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data

>>>> These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings.

The other half of your postings appeared to be delusional ramblings and
various forms of abuse.

>>> So do not include at least 24 more, though I have admitted that some of
>>> the total of 45 counted may be in quote sections and therefore
>>> repetitions of the above or of links provided by others, the latter of
>>> which actually I think 1 or 2 of the above may be anyway.

>> You have only yourself to blame. When your posts descended to calling
>> people unbalanced, liars, and your declarations of hyposhite, it was
>> time to stop searching.

> HYPOSHITE! Your own posts have rarely including any references to any
> supporting *EVIDENCE* whatsoever, and most, I think all but one and that
> may actually have come from someone else, of what you have produced has
> not even been relevant, yet here you are still trolling!

Abuse noted.

>>>> Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC,

>>> 6 of the 10 were links to BBC science programmes, which give details of
>>> the original source scientific papers both in their reports and via
>>> links on each programme episode webpage. The other 4 are to news
>>> reports, which likewise commonly contain links to source and related
>>> material.

You seem to be saying that you don't understand the science papers, so
you use filtered media journalism to make up your shortfall.

>> Then you could have chosen to provide the original scientific papers -
>> which, by the way, you have never claimed to have read - instead of
>> being evasive and gratuitously abusive.

> I link to the BBC's reporting largely to suit the level of those I'm
> arguing against, because they report in plainer English what is said in
> scientific papers in more obscure science-speak English, which probably
> trolls like you would not understand.

Abuse noted.

>>>> an organisation
>>>> not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
>>>> regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.

>>> Your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were established
>>> fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and biased opinion.

Learn to read.

>> You don't seem to have the critical gift of being able to see what is
>> not being said, a vital component of determining what the programme's
>> agenda really is.

> I have sufficient of this gift to be aware that you are *STILL* not
> supplying any *EVIDENCE* to support your claim that SARS-CoV-2
> originated in a lab rather than in the wild as scientists believe, yet
> are still arguing here.

I don't need to. You scuppered your own case quite well all on your own.

>>>> Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia,

>>> Likewise Wikipedia pages contain links to source material, including
>>> where relevant published scientific papers.

Not good enough. You demand science from others, and offer up the BBC
and wikipedia in return. Play the game or abandon your innings.

>> Like the BBC, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of peer-reviewed
>> scientific publications, which is what you have been demanding others
>> supply.

> Where either supply links to supporting scientific publications, by what
> mythical mechanism are those publications supposed suddenly to be
> worthless just because they have been linked to by the BBC or Wikipedia?

You are the one making a case, so you read the science - in the form of
the original peer-reviewed work. Otherwise, in your naivete you have no
idea what agenda the journalists involved brought to their work, you are
assuming they can even understand it in the first place.

>>> Again, your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were
>>> established fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and
>>> biased opinion.

>> Like your stance over the origins of the Wuhan virus?

> My stance on SARS-CoV-2 is supported by the science, yours is not.

But you haven't any read it, so your understanding of it cannot be taken
for granted.

>>>> The remainder of your links seem to be either to business publications
>>>> or coronavirus case statistics.

>>> Which were relevant in some way to the point being made. For example:

>>> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp

>>> A US researcher who worked with a Wuhan virology lab gives 4 reasons
>>> why a coronavirus leak would be extremely unlikely"

>> That is NOT peer-reviewed science, it's merely anecdata.

> It was highly relevant to the point being made, and was still way
> stronger *EVIDENCE* than anything you have produced on the subject.

Let's be kind and say that it's of doubtful utility.

>>> Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
>>>> difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
>>>> "Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between
>>>> SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the
>>>> difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence*
>>>> between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than previously *estimated".

>>> So clearly still you haven't found them all, because you haven't
>>> included the most recent one discussed of the French research in Laos,
>>> as linked again below, and ...

>>> https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos

>> "press-documents" is NOT peer-reviewed scientific publication.

> As you have been told before that the original paper is linked from
> within the report, that is in effect another lie.

So yet again you are confirming you haven't read the science.

>>>> This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your entire
>>>> Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific research
>>>> papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your list seems to
>>>> be somewhat lacking.

>>> ... even just the 21 you've bothered to find above, which we know cannot
>>> be all because there is at least the one above known to be missing from
>>> your list, is 21 times the number of links to relevant research that
>>> *YOU* have supplied! Anyone in the world with even a glowing fag-end of
>>> human intelligence would have recognised by now that 21-1 is a lost
>>> scoreline - in plain English, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

>> The real lesson here is for you. If you want a discussion about science,
>> stop using abusive terms such as 'unbalanced', 'liar', or 'hyposhite'.

> The real lesson here is for you, I call a spade 'a spade', a liar 'a
> liar', and a hypocritical time-wasting shit 'a hyposhite', if you want
> to avoid these terms being applied to you, learn to debate in a rational
> fashion; start by accepting that 1-21 is a lost scoreline and stop
> trolling when you've run out of ammunition.

You still haven't grasped that you've scuppered your own case.

On 04/01/2022 17:04, Spike wrote:
>
> On 03/01/2022 11:26, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> When the score is 1-21 against you, you've lost. When you're in a hole,
>> stop digging.
>
> When it finally dawns on you that you've scuppered your own case, give up.

'Denialism by Dance' doesn't seem to be making much progress. When the
score is 1-21 against you, you've lost.

Troll plonked.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk