On 11/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
> No-one is making claims, only stating the simple truth that the balance
> of scientific evidence so far doesn't favour a lab-leak origin.

Just as an aside, at one time the balance of scientific evidence
strongly favoured the "Steady State" universe. That has long been
discarded as something that fits current knowledge.

I can accept the current probability shows that the lab-leak option is
less probable[1], but it isn't scientific evidence that it is the answer
that will survive long-term.

[1] Thanks to the Chinese Government's determination not to allow the
lab to be the focus of any investigation. Wet markets and local samples
make convenient diversions as well as being possibilities.

Jim

xposting included:

In article <iv4bq5FfdncU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> I'm taking this thread in the upm group, which is not in a good state as
> regards on-topic postings. In order to make it readable, I run a watch
> list of posters, which filters out the rubbish, and sometimes also other
> stuff. Jim isn't in my watch list and so I have seen no messages of his,
> or indeed any of his that have been replied to by people who are.

I tend not to xpost to political groups and would prefer utdt to
actually be *about* digital tv in the UK. But if people *do* shove -
often irrelevant, sometime erronious - political stuff here with
'scientific' claims or implications I may comment.

If anyone wants an outline of my background in science then the URLs for my
website would be a place to start.(*) May be worth a look in
particular for those who have an interest in Hi-Fi or astronomy,
instrumentation engineering, etc. FWIW My most recent webpages are about
the use of Concorde 001 to observe the Solar eclipse of 1973. It was good
fun. :-) Be warned, though, another page shows me wearing coconut shells.
Not for those of a nervous disposition. 8->

Jim

* see my sig, below. In particular the 'biog' one that covers my random
walk though science as a 'career' (sic). The 'Scots Guide' is really
'historic' as I ceased working at uni some years ago.

--
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

xposting included;

In article <smj79b$ihu$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 11:06, Spike wrote:
> >
> > I'm taking this thread in the upm group, which is not in a good state
> > as regards on-topic postings. In order to make it readable, I run a
> > watch list of posters, which filters out the rubbish, and sometimes
> > also other stuff. Jim isn't in my watch list and so I have seen no
> > messages of his, or indeed any of his that have been replied to by
> > people who are.

> Understandable. Jim Le Surf is a retired research scientist with a
> fairly distinguished academic career, whom you'd do well to include in
> your 'in' list.

Slight correction: Afraid I'm not posh enough to spell my name that way.
:-)

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 message <smj50c$2lb$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>On 11/11/2021 12:04, abelard wrote:

>
>HYPOSHITE! The moment anyone debunks any fake news posted by Bob
>LieToThem, they are immediately denounced as 'lefties', as if that
>somehow makes his lies become true.
>
>> why knock it? 'he' is a regular source of amusement
>> a child who believes he can argue with the adults
>> 'cute' is a common term
>
>Another HYPOSHITE! No-one has been more childish in this thread than
>yourself.
>
I'm no expert on the various degrees and grades of shite, but should
that not be 'HYPERSHITE'?
--
Ian

On 11/11/2021 15:17, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> xposting included;
>
> In article <smj79b$ihu$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 11:06, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm taking this thread in the upm group, which is not in a good state
>>> as regards on-topic postings. In order to make it readable, I run a
>>> watch list of posters, which filters out the rubbish, and sometimes
>>> also other stuff. Jim isn't in my watch list and so I have seen no
>>> messages of his, or indeed any of his that have been replied to by
>>> people who are.
>
>> Understandable. Jim Le Surf is a retired research scientist with a
>> fairly distinguished academic career, whom you'd do well to include in
>> your 'in' list.
>
> Slight correction: Afraid I'm not posh enough to spell my name that way.
> :-)
>

Do you have an equation named after you?

On 11/11/2021 16:44, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> I'm no expert on the various degrees and grades of shite, but should
> that not be 'HYPERSHITE'?

LOL! Either spelling will do, I guess, I coined the word as an
abbreviation for 'hypocritical shite'.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/11/2021 15:22, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> No-one is making claims, only stating the simple truth that the balance
>> of scientific evidence so far doesn't favour a lab-leak origin.
>
> Just as an aside, at one time the balance of scientific evidence
> strongly favoured the "Steady State" universe. That has long been
> discarded as something that fits current knowledge.

Errum, no, I don't think so; AIUI there was no balance of *scientific
evidence* in favour of the steady state theory, rather it was just that,
for reasons I don't need to go into here, many people found it more
*philosophically* acceptable. AFAICR, about the only evidence extant at
the time was the expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble,
and if that favoured either theory it was the Big Bang.

> I can accept the current probability shows that the lab-leak option is
> less probable[1], but it isn't scientific evidence that it is the answer
> that will survive long-term.

It's what we have to go by until and if further evidence comes to light.

> [1] Thanks to the Chinese Government's determination not to allow the
> lab to be the focus of any investigation.  Wet markets and local samples
> make convenient diversions as well as being possibilities.

It's all very unfortunate, but in the light of Trump's posturings and
blame and name calling, the Chinese attitude would be understandable
even without their being a communist state, with all that that entails.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 2021-11-11, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 15:22, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 11/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> No-one is making claims, only stating the simple truth that the balance
>>> of scientific evidence so far doesn't favour a lab-leak origin.
>>
>> Just as an aside, at one time the balance of scientific evidence
>> strongly favoured the "Steady State" universe. That has long been
>> discarded as something that fits current knowledge.
>
> Errum, no, I don't think so; AIUI there was no balance of *scientific
> evidence* in favour of the steady state theory, rather it was just that,
> for reasons I don't need to go into here, many people found it more
> *philosophically* acceptable. AFAICR, about the only evidence extant at
> the time was the expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble,
> and if that favoured either theory it was the Big Bang.
>
>> I can accept the current probability shows that the lab-leak option is
>> less probable[1], but it isn't scientific evidence that it is the answer
>> that will survive long-term.
>
> It's what we have to go by until and if further evidence comes to light.
>
>> [1] Thanks to the Chinese Government's determination not to allow the
>> lab to be the focus of any investigation.  Wet markets and local samples
>> make convenient diversions as well as being possibilities.
>
> It's all very unfortunate, but in the light of Trump's posturings and
> blame and name calling, the Chinese attitude would be understandable
> even without their being a communist state, with all that that entails.

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Have you apportioned any blame to Brexit as well?

On 11/11/2021 15:17, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> xposting included;
>
> In article <smj79b$ihu$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> Understandable. Jim Le Surf is a retired research scientist with a
>> fairly distinguished academic career, whom you'd do well to include in
>> your 'in' list.
>
> Slight correction: Afraid I'm not posh enough to spell my name that way.
> :-)

Yes, I've made that mistake before haven't I! Apologies again.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In message <smjhsb$102$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>On 11/11/2021 16:44, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> I'm no expert on the various degrees and grades of shite, but should
>>that not be 'HYPERSHITE'?
>
>LOL! Either spelling will do, I guess, I coined the word as an
>abbreviation for 'hypocritical shite'.
>
'Hypo-' means low, and 'hyper- ' means high. 'A right load of shite'
would definitely be 'hypershite'!
--
Ian

On 11/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 10:27, Spike wrote:
>> On 10/11/2021 12:34, Java Jive wrote:

>>> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
>>> point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
>>> that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
>>> product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
>>> mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
>>> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>>> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.

>> For someone keen to demand *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE* from a
>> totalitarian regime concerning one of their blunders with research
>> possibly associated with advancing their capabilities in bioweapons
>> research, you seem remarkably unsighted into parallel happenings in the
>> USSR and Russia.

>> I suggest you read David Hoffman's book 'The Dead Hand' and Ken Alibek's
>> book 'Biohazard', as primers for what happens concerning such sensitive
>> research in Communist countries. Also, do some research into the anthrax
>> outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg).

> These are political arguments, not scientific ones.
These might be political arguments, but only in the sense that the
scientists who were trying to disguise their bioweapon programme were
doing so under political direction. It was either that or the gulag. I
imagine things aren't too different in the WIV.

> We have scientific evidence, and it doesn't favour a lab-leak origin.

You might more accurately say that you have *some* evidence.
Unfortunately the WIV might not be telling you all of it, and you're in
the bind of not knowing what you don't know.

> Therefore, until new
> evidence comes to light that changes things, it's irrational to presume
> a lab-leak origin.

Once could say with equal veracity that until the balance of scientific
evidence tilts in favour of more coming to light, it's irrational /not/
to presume a lab-leak origin. The books I suggested, and the accounts of
the Sverdlovsk incident, tell you how such things were managed in a
different Communist state.

Kanatjan 'Ken' Alibekov was a young science graduate and had been set a
task, in which he peripherally worked out that the Soviets had attacked
the Germans using a bioweapon based on the disease tularemia in 1943(?).
Proudly, he went to his boss and showed him his work. The boss went as
white a sheet, told Alibekov to burn all the paperwork concerned with
his finding, and never to speak of it again. Perhaps the paper-shredders
in the WIV were working overtime before the foreigners got to visit.

--
Spike

On 11/11/2021 17:21, Incubus wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-11, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/11/2021 15:22, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> [1] Thanks to the Chinese Government's determination not to allow the
>>> lab to be the focus of any investigation.  Wet markets and local samples
>>> make convenient diversions as well as being possibilities.
>>
>> It's all very unfortunate, but in the light of Trump's posturings and
>> blame and name calling, the Chinese attitude would be understandable
>> even without their being a communist state, with all that that entails.
>
> Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Non-sequitur

> Have you apportioned any blame to Brexit as well?

Non-sequitur

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:21:09 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2021-11-11, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 15:22, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No-one is making claims, only stating the simple truth that the balance
>>>> of scientific evidence so far doesn't favour a lab-leak origin.
>>>
>>> Just as an aside, at one time the balance of scientific evidence
>>> strongly favoured the "Steady State" universe. That has long been
>>> discarded as something that fits current knowledge.
>>
>> Errum, no, I don't think so; AIUI there was no balance of *scientific
>> evidence* in favour of the steady state theory, rather it was just that,
>> for reasons I don't need to go into here, many people found it more
>> *philosophically* acceptable. AFAICR, about the only evidence extant at
>> the time was the expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble,
>> and if that favoured either theory it was the Big Bang.
>>
>>> I can accept the current probability shows that the lab-leak option is
>>> less probable[1], but it isn't scientific evidence that it is the answer
>>> that will survive long-term.
>>
>> It's what we have to go by until and if further evidence comes to light.
>>
>>> [1] Thanks to the Chinese Government's determination not to allow the
>>> lab to be the focus of any investigation.  Wet markets and local samples
>>> make convenient diversions as well as being possibilities.
>>
>> It's all very unfortunate, but in the light of Trump's posturings and
>> blame and name calling, the Chinese attitude would be understandable
>> even without their being a communist state, with all that that entails.
>
>Trump Derangement Syndrome.
>
>Have you apportioned any blame to Brexit as well?

'he' seems to have a vague clue as to how 'he'
screwed up but either doesn't have the wit or
the integrity to dig his way out

On 11/11/2021 18:08, abelard wrote:
>
> 'he' seems to have a vague clue as to how 'he'
> screwed up but either doesn't have the wit or
> the integrity to dig his way out

Another piece of childish dribbling drivel. Shouldn't you be doing your
school homework?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/11/2021 18:01, Spike wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 10:27, Spike wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2021 12:34, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
>>>> point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
>>>> that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
>>>> product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
>>>> mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
>>>> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>>>> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.
>
>>> For someone keen to demand *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE* from a
>>> totalitarian regime concerning one of their blunders with research
>>> possibly associated with advancing their capabilities in bioweapons
>>> research, you seem remarkably unsighted into parallel happenings in the
>>> USSR and Russia.
>
>>> I suggest you read David Hoffman's book 'The Dead Hand' and Ken Alibek's
>>> book 'Biohazard', as primers for what happens concerning such sensitive
>>> research in Communist countries. Also, do some research into the anthrax
>>> outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg).
>
>> These are political arguments, not scientific ones.
>
> These might be political arguments, but only in the sense that the
> scientists who were trying to disguise their bioweapon programme were
> doing so under political direction. It was either that or the gulag. I
> imagine things aren't too different in the WIV.

You have no foundation of proof for any such belief - for that's all
it is, something you want to believe - and against you there is the
testimony of people who have collaborated with the WIV for 15 years, and
who have not found any cause for suspicion.

>> We have scientific evidence, and it doesn't favour a lab-leak origin.
>
> You might more accurately say that you have *some* evidence.
> Unfortunately the WIV might not be telling you all of it, and you're in
> the bind of not knowing what you don't know.

The scientific evidence we have, which comes from a range of sources,
not just from within China, points to animal not lab origin.

>> Therefore, until new
>> evidence comes to light that changes things, it's irrational to presume
>> a lab-leak origin.
>
> Once could say with equal veracity that until the balance of scientific
> evidence tilts in favour of more coming to light, it's irrational /not/
> to presume a lab-leak origin. The books I suggested, and the accounts of
> the Sverdlovsk incident, tell you how such things were managed in a
> different Communist state.
>
> Kanatjan 'Ken' Alibekov was a young science graduate and had been set a
> task, in which he peripherally worked out that the Soviets had attacked
> the Germans using a bioweapon based on the disease tularemia in 1943(?).
> Proudly, he went to his boss and showed him his work. The boss went as
> white a sheet, told Alibekov to burn all the paperwork concerned with
> his finding, and never to speak of it again. Perhaps the paper-shredders
> in the WIV were working overtime before the foreigners got to visit.

Again, all barely relevant political arguments. Scientifically we know
what we know, and it doesn't support a lab-leak origin.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <smjcfp$o8p$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
> > No-one is making claims, only stating the simple truth that the balance
> > of scientific evidence so far doesn't favour a lab-leak origin.

> Just as an aside, at one time the balance of scientific evidence
> strongly favoured the "Steady State" universe. That has long been
> discarded as something that fits current knowledge.

It was preferred by some (notably Hoyle) because it was felt 'simpler' than
a 'Big Bang'. One of the 'rules' for theories is that they should assume as
little as possible. Or as Einstein apparently said "As simple as possible,
but no simpler." However evidence indicating a 'Big Bang' then started
turning up.

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 <smjhll$v2g$1@dont-email.me>, Pancho
<Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 15:17, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > xposting included;
> >
> > In article <smj79b$ihu$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> > <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> >
> >> Understandable. Jim Le Surf is a retired research scientist with a
> >> fairly distinguished academic career, whom you'd do well to include
> >> in your 'in' list.
> >
> > Slight correction: Afraid I'm not posh enough to spell my name that
> > way.
> > :-)
> >

> Do you have an equation named after you?

Afraid not. Don't have a Nobel Prize, either! I do have "Jim's Law" though:

"Data only becomes information when you know how it was produced."

FWIW I did win the old NPL "UK National Metrology Prize" twice. But no-one
has ever heard of that. :-)

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 11/11/2021 18:32, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 18:01, Spike wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2021 10:27, Spike wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2021 12:34, Java Jive wrote:

>>>>> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
>>>>> point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
>>>>> that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
>>>>> product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
>>>>> mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
>>>>> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>>>>> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.

>>>> For someone keen to demand *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE* from a
>>>> totalitarian regime concerning one of their blunders with research
>>>> possibly associated with advancing their capabilities in bioweapons
>>>> research, you seem remarkably unsighted into parallel happenings in the
>>>> USSR and Russia.

>>>> I suggest you read David Hoffman's book 'The Dead Hand' and Ken Alibek's
>>>> book 'Biohazard', as primers for what happens concerning such sensitive
>>>> research in Communist countries. Also, do some research into the anthrax
>>>> outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg).

>>> These are political arguments, not scientific ones.

>> These might be political arguments, but only in the sense that the
>> scientists who were trying to disguise their bioweapon programme were
>> doing so under political direction. It was either that or the gulag. I
>> imagine things aren't too different in the WIV.

> You have no foundation of proof for any such belief - for that's all
> it is, something you want to believe - and against you there is the
> testimony of people who have collaborated with the WIV for 15 years, and
> who have not found any cause for suspicion.

Were they expert bioweapon inspectors well-briefed by high-level defectors?

You need to keep in mind that Biopreparat was an enormous organisation,
brought into being in 1974, and the West never found out about its
bioweapon function, despite the enormous amount of monitoring of the
Soviet Union, until a high-level defector appeared in 1989. Thereafter
pressure was put on the Soviet Union to open the organisation to Western
inspection. When the inspectors arrived a couple of years later, knowing
full well what Biopreparat's capabilities were, they found squeaky-clean
but empty labs that had been thoroughly sterilised and scrubbed.

All this is in the public domain, and you might like to brief yourself
on the matter before taking a definitive stand over the WIV affair.

As you state I have no proof of any of this, you only have to get in
touch with Ken Alibek. His firm's web site is easily found and from
which you can find the contact details; although he might be miffed if
you haven't fully briefed yourself before getting in touch with him.

There are many sources of information, this Wikipedia article is worth
reading:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program#Post-BWC_developments>

>>> We have scientific evidence, and it doesn't favour a lab-leak origin.

>> You might more accurately say that you have *some* evidence.
>> Unfortunately the WIV might not be telling you all of it, and you're in
>> the bind of not knowing what you don't know.

> The scientific evidence we have, which comes from a range of sources,
> not just from within China, points to animal not lab origin.

Most such viruses do have an animal source, even if subsequently worked
on on a bioweapons facility. If you wanted to undertake a deniable
bioweapon programme, ask yourself what means you would employ to confuse
the issue in the minds of the less well-informed. For example, does your
'range of sources' include high-level defectors or experienced bioweapon
inspectors?

>>> Therefore, until new
>>> evidence comes to light that changes things, it's irrational to presume
>>> a lab-leak origin.

>> Once could say with equal veracity that until the balance of scientific
>> evidence tilts in favour of more coming to light, it's irrational /not/
>> to presume a lab-leak origin. The books I suggested, and the accounts of
>> the Sverdlovsk incident, tell you how such things were managed in a
>> different Communist state.

>> Kanatjan 'Ken' Alibekov was a young science graduate and had been set a
>> task, in which he peripherally worked out that the Soviets had attacked
>> the Germans using a bioweapon based on the disease tularemia in 1943(?).
>> Proudly, he went to his boss and showed him his work. The boss went as
>> white a sheet, told Alibekov to burn all the paperwork concerned with
>> his finding, and never to speak of it again. Perhaps the paper-shredders
>> in the WIV were working overtime before the foreigners got to visit.

> Again, all barely relevant political arguments. Scientifically we know
> what we know, and it doesn't support a lab-leak origin.

That's what they want you to think, and is exactly what the Soviets did
so successfully.

--
Spike

On 12/11/2021 10:56, Spike wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 18:32, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 18:01, Spike wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2021 10:27, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2021 12:34, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>>>> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
>>>>>> point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
>>>>>> that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
>>>>>> product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
>>>>>> mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
>>>>>> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>>>>>> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.
>
>>>>> For someone keen to demand *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE* from a
>>>>> totalitarian regime concerning one of their blunders with research
>>>>> possibly associated with advancing their capabilities in bioweapons
>>>>> research, you seem remarkably unsighted into parallel happenings in the
>>>>> USSR and Russia.
>
>>>>> I suggest you read David Hoffman's book 'The Dead Hand' and Ken Alibek's
>>>>> book 'Biohazard', as primers for what happens concerning such sensitive
>>>>> research in Communist countries. Also, do some research into the anthrax
>>>>> outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg).
>
>>>> These are political arguments, not scientific ones.
>
>>> These might be political arguments, but only in the sense that the
>>> scientists who were trying to disguise their bioweapon programme were
>>> doing so under political direction. It was either that or the gulag. I
>>> imagine things aren't too different in the WIV.
>
>> You have no foundation of proof for any such belief - for that's all
>> it is, something you want to believe - and against you there is the
>> testimony of people who have collaborated with the WIV for 15 years, and
>> who have not found any cause for suspicion.

[snip irrelevance which merely shows that you are believing what you
want to believe, not basing your beliefs on the current state of the
evidence]

>> The scientific evidence we have, which comes from a range of sources,
>> not just from within China, points to animal not lab origin.
>
> Most such viruses do have an animal source, even if subsequently worked
> on on a bioweapons facility. If you wanted to undertake a deniable
> bioweapon programme, ask yourself what means you would employ to confuse
> the issue in the minds of the less well-informed. For example, does your
> 'range of sources' include high-level defectors or experienced bioweapon
> inspectors?

As I think you know very well, when I said 'animal' source, I meant that
it showed no evidence of human tampering.

>> Again, all barely relevant political arguments. Scientifically we know
>> what we know, and it doesn't support a lab-leak origin.
>
> That's what they want you to think, and is exactly what the Soviets did
> so successfully.

Conspiracy paranoia. If the Chinese were really investigating
bio-weapons, the very last place they would be doing it would be in a
lab that had scientists from outside China working for long periods
within it, and that was frequently visited and/or inspected by foreign
nationals, that received foreign funding, and whose staff collaborated
over 15 years with other scientists in other countries.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/11/2021 11:52, Java Jive wrote:

> If the Chinese were really investigating
> bio-weapons, the very last place they would be doing it would be in a
> lab that had scientists from outside China working for long periods
> within it, and that was frequently visited and/or inspected by foreign
> nationals, that received foreign funding, and whose staff collaborated
> over 15 years with other scientists in other countries.
>
I think the term you have missed is "Hidden in plain sight". Research
labs have several projects on the go at any time, and they keep them
strictly isolated, both for personnel safety and rumour control[1].

The foreign nationals would not be aware of anything going on in the
Wutan lab that wasn't their research project.

[1] I visited a lab as a function of one job I had, and the "need to
know" was *very* strictly enforced.

Jim

On 12/11/2021 11:52, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 10:56, Spike wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 18:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2021 18:01, Spike wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2021 10:27, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2021 12:34, Java Jive wrote:

>>>>>>> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
>>>>>>> point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
>>>>>>> that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
>>>>>>> product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
>>>>>>> mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
>>>>>>> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>>>>>>> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.

>>>>>> For someone keen to demand *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE* from a
>>>>>> totalitarian regime concerning one of their blunders with research
>>>>>> possibly associated with advancing their capabilities in bioweapons
>>>>>> research, you seem remarkably unsighted into parallel happenings in the
>>>>>> USSR and Russia.

>>>>>> I suggest you read David Hoffman's book 'The Dead Hand' and Ken Alibek's
>>>>>> book 'Biohazard', as primers for what happens concerning such sensitive
>>>>>> research in Communist countries. Also, do some research into the anthrax
>>>>>> outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg).

>>>>> These are political arguments, not scientific ones.

>>>> These might be political arguments, but only in the sense that the
>>>> scientists who were trying to disguise their bioweapon programme were
>>>> doing so under political direction. It was either that or the gulag. I
>>>> imagine things aren't too different in the WIV.

>>> You have no foundation of proof for any such belief - for that's all
>>> it is, something you want to believe - and against you there is the
>>> testimony of people who have collaborated with the WIV for 15 years, and
>>> who have not found any cause for suspicion.

> [snip irrelevance which merely shows that you are believing what you
> want to believe, not basing your beliefs on the current state of the
> evidence]

>>> The scientific evidence we have, which comes from a range of sources,
>>> not just from within China, points to animal not lab origin.

>> Most such viruses do have an animal source, even if subsequently worked
>> on on a bioweapons facility. If you wanted to undertake a deniable
>> bioweapon programme, ask yourself what means you would employ to confuse
>> the issue in the minds of the less well-informed. For example, does your
>> 'range of sources' include high-level defectors or experienced bioweapon
>> inspectors?

> As I think you know very well, when I said 'animal' source, I meant that
> it showed no evidence of human tampering.

>>> Again, all barely relevant political arguments. Scientifically we know
>>> what we know, and it doesn't support a lab-leak origin.

>> That's what they want you to think, and is exactly what the Soviets did
>> so successfully.

> Conspiracy paranoia. If the Chinese were really investigating
> bio-weapons, the very last place they would be doing it would be in a
> lab that had scientists from outside China working for long periods
> within it, and that was frequently visited and/or inspected by foreign
> nationals, that received foreign funding, and whose staff collaborated
> over 15 years with other scientists in other countries.

That merely shows that you are believing what you want to believe, not
basing your beliefs on the current state of the evidence as provided by
experts in the field.

--
Spike

On 12/11/2021 12:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2021 11:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> If the Chinese were really investigating
>> bio-weapons, the very last place they would be doing it would be in a
>> lab that had scientists from outside China working for long periods
>> within it, and that was frequently visited and/or inspected by foreign
>> nationals, that received foreign funding, and whose staff collaborated
>> over 15 years with other scientists in other countries.
>>
> I think the term you have missed is "Hidden in plain sight".

That term does not feature in the subthread immediately above.

> Research
> labs have several projects on the go at any time, and they keep them
> strictly isolated, both for personnel safety and rumour control[1].
>
> The foreign nationals would not be aware of anything going on in the
> Wutan lab that wasn't their research project.

They would be aware of areas of the lab to which they were not admitted,
and in the light of recent events might be expected to have commented on
such things, but I'm not aware of anyone doing so.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/11/2021 13:19, Spike wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2021 11:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/2021 10:56, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2021 18:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Again, all barely relevant political arguments. Scientifically we know
>>>> what we know, and it doesn't support a lab-leak origin.
>>>
>>> That's what they want you to think, and is exactly what the Soviets did
>>> so successfully.
>>>
>> Conspiracy paranoia. If the Chinese were really investigating
>> bio-weapons, the very last place they would be doing it would be in a
>> lab that had scientists from outside China working for long periods
>> within it, and that was frequently visited and/or inspected by foreign
>> nationals, that received foreign funding, and whose staff collaborated
>> over 15 years with other scientists in other countries.
>
> That merely shows that you are believing what you want to believe, not
> basing your beliefs on the current state of the evidence as provided by
> experts in the field.

Nonsense, you are not bringing to the table evidence about this
outbreak, merely historical evidence which might be, but most probably
isn't, relevant here, whereas I'm going on what is scientifically known
at the current time.

Given the number of foreign visitors to the lab, it would be
extraordinary beyond belief for there to have been areas of the lab that
were off limits to them and *NO-ONE* has mentioned this since the
outbreak began!

Let me remind you again of what Peter Daszac has said about the WIV:

"I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years, and I do
that with my eyes wide open, I realise that behind of all that is an
authoritarian regime, but I've listened to everything they've said to me
for fifteen years, I've worked with them, I've eaten dinner with them,
I've been in the lab, we've had staff embedded in their labs, they've
visited the US, and Europe, and other places, I've never heard anything
said by anybody that in any way was suspicious, or we've later found out
to be untruthful. These are just scientists doing their job, just like
scientists all round the world. There's nothing unusual about this work
at all."

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/11/2021 13:20, Java Jive wrote:
> They would be aware of areas of the lab to which they were not admitted,
> and in the light of recent events might be expected to have commented on
> such things, but I'm not aware of anyone doing so.

You obviously haven't worked in any highly sensitive areas.

If anyone said anything like that, they would be out of the door with
their security clearance permanently removed. That is assuming that they
are not still in China where they would just be arrested and charged
with something so that they could be kept out of the way.

That is a huge penalty for simply saying there was a closed area and
they have no idea what goes on in there.

Jim

On 15:52 12 Nov 2021, The Iceberg said:
> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 13:55:36 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 13:19, Spike wrote:
>> > On 12/11/2021 11:52, Java Jive wrote:
>> >> On 12/11/2021 10:56, Spike wrote:
>> >>> On 11/11/2021 18:32, Java Jive wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Again, all barely relevant political arguments. Scientifically
>> >>>> we know what we know, and it doesn't support a lab-leak
>> >>>> origin.
>> >>>
>> >>> That's what they want you to think, and is exactly what the
>> >>> Soviets did so successfully.
>> >>>
>> >> Conspiracy paranoia. If the Chinese were really investigating
>> >> bio-weapons, the very last place they would be doing it would be
>> >> in a lab that had scientists from outside China working for long
>> >> periods within it, and that was frequently visited and/or
>> >> inspected by foreign nationals, that received foreign funding,
>> >> and whose staff collaborated over 15 years with other scientists
>> >> in other countries.
>> >
>> > That merely shows that you are believing what you want to
>> > believe, not basing your beliefs on the current state of the
>> > evidence as provided by experts in the field.
>> Nonsense, you are not bringing to the table evidence about this
>> outbreak, merely historical evidence which might be, but most
>> probably isn't, relevant here, whereas I'm going on what is
>> scientifically known at the current time.
>>
>> Given the number of foreign visitors to the lab, it would be
>> extraordinary beyond belief for there to have been areas of the lab
>> that were off limits to them and *NO-ONE* has mentioned this since
>> the outbreak began!
>>
>> Let me remind you again of what Peter Daszac has said about the
>> WIV:
>>
>> "I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years, and I
>> do that with my eyes wide open, I realise that behind of all that
>> is an authoritarian regime, but I've listened to everything they've
>> said to me for fifteen years, I've worked with them, I've eaten
>> dinner with them, I've been in the lab, we've had staff embedded in
>> their labs, they've visited the US, and Europe, and other places,
>> I've never heard anything said by anybody that in any way was
>> suspicious, or we've later found out to be untruthful. These are
>> just scientists doing their job, just like scientists all round the
>> world. There's nothing unusual about this work at all."
>
> oh really?
> Chinese researcher removed from Canada's only level-4 lab
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7fWLs6pl78
> Chinese researcher escorted from infectious disease lab amid RCMP
> investigation
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/chinese-researcher-
> escorted-f
> rom-infectious-disease-lab-amid-rcmp-investigation-1.5211567

Why have you removed uk.tech.digital-tv ?

Anyone following the thread in that group will have missed your reply. Is
this a way of having the last word?