On 10/11/2021 09:58, Incubus wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST*  evidence that the outbreak
>>>> began in the lab.
>>>
>>> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
>>> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
>>> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
>>
>> Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
>> to the outbreak.
>>
>>> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
>>> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
>>> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
>>> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
>>> begin in the lab either.
>>
>> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
>> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>
> According to the British Medical Journal, China has stymied research
> into Covid-19's origins:
>
> https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1890
>
> "The theory that the novel coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan
> Institute of Virology has gained ground in recent months, not least
> because of suspicions generated by the extreme reticence of China’s
> government."

Exactly, an authoritarian regime's typical tendency towards news control
and denial of anything hostile is precisely what is largely fuelling
speculation, but that's politics, not *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE*!

> The world "needs a proper investigation" into how Covid-19 started:

As one of the members of the mission said several months ago soon after
the mission's return, and as I've already quoted her here.

> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>
> "In March the joint study reported that it was “extremely unlikely”
> that the virus had been released in a laboratory accident. Dr Ben
> Embarek revealed that this conclusion did not come from a balanced
> assessment of all the relevant evidence but from a steadfast refusal
> by the Chinese members of the joint study to support anything
> stronger. Indeed they only allowed even that minimal assessment on the
> condition that the report did not call for further investigation into
> the question".
>
> Even the WHO has backtracked and is pushing for a more thorough report.
> You continue to believe the flawed study heavily overseen and managed by
> the CCP if it makes you feel better, though.

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.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/11/2021 10:02, Spike wrote:
>
> On 09/11/2021 13:39, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
>> theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.
>
> It's called 'drawing a parallel', and you don't help your case by
> ignoring such things.

You don't help either of your cases by lumping them together in such an
unscientific way. The only parallel between them is that both have been
highly politicised by dishonest people for reasons that have nothing to
do with science. Be aware that both Jim, who has already replied to
you, and I have scientific backgrounds, Jim having had a successful
scientific career, and that most if not all of the unscientific bullshit
and twaddle that has ever been uttered in either of these areas has
already been paraded before us as 'ultimate proof' of whatever, only to
be easily and swiftly debunked by one or other or both of us.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/11/2021 11:09, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <598923ba51noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I guess it is a parallel in that both are examples of non-scientific
>> twaddle presented as being 'science' when they are (sour) cherries.
>
> All views not held by agenda following lefties must be wrong. People
> with other views must be attacked and bullied into silence. Be as
> personal and nasty as possible.

Puerile paranoia left in for others to laugh at.

> I for one will not be bullied.

And if you were right, that would be commendable, but as you're nearly
always wrong, that just makes you a stubborn irrational old fool.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 09:58, Incubus wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST*  evidence that the outbreak
>>>>> began in the lab.
>>>>
>>>> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
>>>> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
>>>> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
>>>
>>> Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
>>> to the outbreak.
>>>
>>>> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
>>>> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
>>>> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
>>>> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
>>>> begin in the lab either.
>>>
>>> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
>>> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
>>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>>
>> According to the British Medical Journal, China has stymied research
>> into Covid-19's origins:
>>
>> https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1890
>>
>> "The theory that the novel coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan
>> Institute of Virology has gained ground in recent months, not least
>> because of suspicions generated by the extreme reticence of China’s
>> government."
>
> Exactly, an authoritarian regime's typical tendency towards news control
> and denial of anything hostile is precisely what is largely fuelling
> speculation, but that's politics, not *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE*!

Those politics are precisely the reason why the scientific evidence is
inconclusive and insufficient. Glossing over them and dismissing
concerns as speculation ignores the fact that vital evidence has not
been made available and the joint investigation has been steered away
from a particular conclusion.

>> The world "needs a proper investigation" into how Covid-19 started:
>
> As one of the members of the mission said several months ago soon after
> the mission's return, and as I've already quoted her here.
>
>> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>>
>> "In March the joint study reported that it was “extremely unlikely”
>> that the virus had been released in a laboratory accident. Dr Ben
>> Embarek revealed that this conclusion did not come from a balanced
>> assessment of all the relevant evidence but from a steadfast refusal
>> by the Chinese members of the joint study to support anything
>> stronger. Indeed they only allowed even that minimal assessment on the
>> condition that the report did not call for further investigation into
>> the question".
>>
>> Even the WHO has backtracked and is pushing for a more thorough report.
>> You continue to believe the flawed study heavily overseen and managed by
>> the CCP if it makes you feel better, though.
>
> 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.

The dearth of evidence is precisely because China is being
uncooperative. The joint study is not just fundamentally flawed; by
agreeing to rule out a potential outcome - that Covid-19 got into the
wild as the result of a lab leak - it is unscientific.

The studies suggesting that the DNA sequences present in Covid-19 are
unlikely to have evolved naturally and that it is highly unlikely that
the virus could have crossed species are also worth mentioning.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:50:57 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/11/2021 10:02, Spike wrote:
>>
>> On 09/11/2021 13:39, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
>>> theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.
>>
>> It's called 'drawing a parallel', and you don't help your case by
>> ignoring such things.
>
>You don't help either of your cases by lumping them together in such an
>unscientific way. The only parallel between them is that both have been
>highly politicised by dishonest people for reasons that have nothing to
>do with science. Be aware that both Jim, who has already replied to
>you, and I have scientific backgrounds, Jim having had a successful
>scientific career, and that most if not all of the unscientific bullshit
>and twaddle that has ever been uttered in either of these areas has
>already been paraded before us as 'ultimate proof' of whatever, only to
>be easily and swiftly debunked by one or other or both of us.

you are probably confusing science with scientism

the first is an inchoate group of methods...
the second is crude religion...socialism is a form of scientism
and very little relation to any working form of genuine science

you are far distant from 'science'

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:34:25 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
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

that was his job you numpty!

>in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.

you post as if you are 16 years old

or as the ad has it, 'don't ask you, you're only 6!'

On 10/11/2021 13:02, abelard wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:50:57 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> You don't help either of your cases by lumping them together in such an
>> unscientific way. The only parallel between them is that both have been
>> highly politicised by dishonest people for reasons that have nothing to
>> do with science. Be aware that both Jim, who has already replied to
>> you, and I have scientific backgrounds, Jim having had a successful
>> scientific career, and that most if not all of the unscientific bullshit
>> and twaddle that has ever been uttered in either of these areas has
>> already been paraded before us as 'ultimate proof' of whatever, only to
>> be easily and swiftly debunked by one or other or both of us.
>
> you are probably confusing science with scientism
>
> the first is an inchoate group of methods...
> the second is crude religion...socialism is a form of scientism
> and very little relation to any working form of genuine science
>
> you are far distant from 'science'

In all the irrelevant pompous twaddle that you have supplied in this
thread, you have been far removed from supplying anything even remotely
factual, let alone anything that could be classed as scientific method
or reasoning.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/11/2021 13:06, abelard wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:34:25 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> 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
>
> that was his job you numpty!

Nonsense, it was his job to protect the American people and promote
their best interests, and his early cavalier disregard of the dangers of
the pandemic which allowed many Americans to die needlessly because the
country was insufficiently prepared, followed by his politicising its
emergence in an attempt distract attention away from his early
disastrous misjudgement of it, merely made getting the truth out of the
Chinese authorities even more difficult, and therefore was entirely
counter-productive and not in the long-term best interests of the
American people.

>> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.
>
> you post as if you are 16 years old
>
> or as the ad has it, 'don't ask you, you're only 6!'

I'm retired, but I've known many 16 year-olds argue more coherently and
to the point than your vacuous so-called 'contributions' to this thread.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <u56nogp83jsaaj824nhuev61bfmto5ha79@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> If that really is what happened, then let's hope that whoever was
> responsible has learned from it that anything infectious intended as a
> weapon is as much use as nuclear bombs, in that if anybody uses it the
> entire world suffers and nobody wins.

> You'd think that anybody with half a brain would have realised this
> already, which doesn't say much for the intelligence or equanimity of
> the average world leader.

The snag is that some 'world leaders' (sometimes people paying the apparent
'leaders') may not care if they feel they can gain and protect themself.
Indeed, 'unconventional war' now seems to be established as a tactic when
no actual war has been declared. cf Belorus/Poland at present as an
example.

Parallel perhaps with what has happened recently in our beloved HoC as
many flocked in defence of their snouts in the trough.

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 10/11/2021 12:55, Incubus wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/11/2021 09:58, Incubus wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021-11-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
>>>> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
>>>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>>>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>>>
>>> According to the British Medical Journal, China has stymied research
>>> into Covid-19's origins:
>>>
>>> https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1890
>>>
>>> "The theory that the novel coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan
>>> Institute of Virology has gained ground in recent months, not least
>>> because of suspicions generated by the extreme reticence of China’s
>>> government."
>>
>> Exactly, an authoritarian regime's typical tendency towards news control
>> and denial of anything hostile is precisely what is largely fuelling
>> speculation, but that's politics, not *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE*!
>
> Those politics are precisely the reason why the scientific evidence is
> inconclusive and insufficient. Glossing over them and dismissing
> concerns as speculation ignores the fact that vital evidence has not
> been made available and the joint investigation has been steered away
> from a particular conclusion.

I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
still that the virus started naturally.

>>> The world "needs a proper investigation" into how Covid-19 started:
>>
>> As one of the members of the mission said several months ago soon after
>> the mission's return, and as I've already quoted her here.
>>
>>> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>>>
>>> "In March the joint study reported that it was “extremely unlikely”
>>> that the virus had been released in a laboratory accident. Dr Ben
>>> Embarek revealed that this conclusion did not come from a balanced
>>> assessment of all the relevant evidence but from a steadfast refusal
>>> by the Chinese members of the joint study to support anything
>>> stronger. Indeed they only allowed even that minimal assessment on the
>>> condition that the report did not call for further investigation into
>>> the question".
>>>
>>> Even the WHO has backtracked and is pushing for a more thorough report.
>>> You continue to believe the flawed study heavily overseen and managed by
>>> the CCP if it makes you feel better, though.
>>
>> 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.
>
> The dearth of evidence is precisely because China is being
> uncooperative. The joint study is not just fundamentally flawed; by
> agreeing to rule out a potential outcome - that Covid-19 got into the
> wild as the result of a lab leak - it is unscientific.
>
> The studies suggesting that the DNA sequences present in Covid-19 are
> unlikely to have evolved naturally and that it is highly unlikely that
> the virus could have crossed species are also worth mentioning.

What studies? We hear about them, but no-one ever provides any credible
links in provenance. Until someone provides credible scientific
evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with the scientific evidence that
I've already researched at length and quoted here, and which I suppose
you still haven't bothered to read; hardly a recommendation for your
opinions, is it?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:35:05 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/11/2021 13:02, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:50:57 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't help either of your cases by lumping them together in such an
>>> unscientific way. The only parallel between them is that both have been
>>> highly politicised by dishonest people for reasons that have nothing to
>>> do with science. Be aware that both Jim, who has already replied to
>>> you, and I have scientific backgrounds, Jim having had a successful
>>> scientific career, and that most if not all of the unscientific bullshit
>>> and twaddle that has ever been uttered in either of these areas has
>>> already been paraded before us as 'ultimate proof' of whatever, only to
>>> be easily and swiftly debunked by one or other or both of us.
>>
>> you are probably confusing science with scientism
>>
>> the first is an inchoate group of methods...
>> the second is crude religion...socialism is a form of scientism
>> and very little relation to any working form of genuine science
>>
>> you are far distant from 'science'
>
>In all the irrelevant pompous twaddle that you have supplied in this
>thread, you have been far removed from supplying anything even remotely
>factual, let alone anything that could be classed as scientific method
>or reasoning.

you content factor is.....zero...again

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:46:52 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/11/2021 13:06, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:34:25 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> 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
>>
>> that was his job you numpty!
>
>Nonsense, it was his job to protect the American people and promote
>their best interests,

ie, he's your mummy

there is a social scientist who regards socialists as looking
for mummy and rightists looking for daddy...

>and his early cavalier disregard of the dangers of
>the pandemic which allowed many Americans to die needlessly because the
>country was insufficiently prepared, followed by his politicising its
>emergence in an attempt distract attention away from his early
>disastrous misjudgement of it, merely made getting the truth out of the
>Chinese authorities even more difficult, and therefore was entirely
>counter-productive and not in the long-term best interests of the
>American people.
>
>>> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>>> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.
>>
>> you post as if you are 16 years old
>>
>> or as the ad has it, 'don't ask you, you're only 6!'
>
>I'm retired, but I've known many 16 year-olds argue more coherently and
>to the point than your vacuous so-called 'contributions' to this thread.

On 10/11/2021 13:58, abelard wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:35:05 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/11/2021 13:02, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> you are far distant from 'science'
>>
>> In all the irrelevant pompous twaddle that you have supplied in this
>> thread, you have been far removed from supplying anything even remotely
>> factual, let alone anything that could be classed as scientific method
>> or reasoning.
>
> you content factor is.....zero...again

I think you must be looking in a mirror; I've provided evidence at
length in this thread to support my views, whereas you have provided
absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 12:55, Incubus wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2021 09:58, Incubus wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-11-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
>>>>> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
>>>>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>>>>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>>>>
>>>> According to the British Medical Journal, China has stymied research
>>>> into Covid-19's origins:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1890
>>>>
>>>> "The theory that the novel coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan
>>>> Institute of Virology has gained ground in recent months, not least
>>>> because of suspicions generated by the extreme reticence of China’s
>>>> government."
>>>
>>> Exactly, an authoritarian regime's typical tendency towards news control
>>> and denial of anything hostile is precisely what is largely fuelling
>>> speculation, but that's politics, not *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE*!
>>
>> Those politics are precisely the reason why the scientific evidence is
>> inconclusive and insufficient. Glossing over them and dismissing
>> concerns as speculation ignores the fact that vital evidence has not
>> been made available and the joint investigation has been steered away
>> from a particular conclusion.
>
> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
> as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
> still that the virus started naturally.

The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim. For
someone who claims familiarity with the scientific method, I find it
astounding that you think it scientific to ignore certain avenues of
enquiry.

>>>> The world "needs a proper investigation" into how Covid-19 started:
>>>
>>> As one of the members of the mission said several months ago soon after
>>> the mission's return, and as I've already quoted her here.
>>>
>>>> https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
>>>>
>>>> "In March the joint study reported that it was “extremely unlikely”
>>>> that the virus had been released in a laboratory accident. Dr Ben
>>>> Embarek revealed that this conclusion did not come from a balanced
>>>> assessment of all the relevant evidence but from a steadfast refusal
>>>> by the Chinese members of the joint study to support anything
>>>> stronger. Indeed they only allowed even that minimal assessment on the
>>>> condition that the report did not call for further investigation into
>>>> the question".
>>>>
>>>> Even the WHO has backtracked and is pushing for a more thorough report.
>>>> You continue to believe the flawed study heavily overseen and managed by
>>>> the CCP if it makes you feel better, though.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The dearth of evidence is precisely because China is being
>> uncooperative. The joint study is not just fundamentally flawed; by
>> agreeing to rule out a potential outcome - that Covid-19 got into the
>> wild as the result of a lab leak - it is unscientific.
>>
>> The studies suggesting that the DNA sequences present in Covid-19 are
>> unlikely to have evolved naturally and that it is highly unlikely that
>> the virus could have crossed species are also worth mentioning.
>
> What studies? We hear about them, but no-one ever provides any credible
> links in provenance. Until someone provides credible scientific
> evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with the scientific evidence that
> I've already researched at length and quoted here, and which I suppose
> you still haven't bothered to read; hardly a recommendation for your
> opinions, is it?

Opinions be damned. Facts matter. The joint study you seem to think is
the most legitimate was not allowed to investigate a particular avenue
of enquiry. That is unscientific.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 14:04:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/11/2021 13:58, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:35:05 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2021 13:02, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> you are far distant from 'science'
>>>
>>> In all the irrelevant pompous twaddle that you have supplied in this
>>> thread, you have been far removed from supplying anything even remotely
>>> factual, let alone anything that could be classed as scientific method
>>> or reasoning.
>>
>> you content factor is.....zero...again
>
>I think you must be looking in a mirror; I've provided evidence at
>length in this thread to support my views, whereas you have provided
>absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever.

you content factor is.....zero...again

On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
>> as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
>> still that the virus started naturally.
>
> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.

How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!

> For
> someone who claims familiarity with the scientific method, I find it
> astounding that you think it scientific to ignore certain avenues of
> enquiry.

How can I be other than ignoring what you yourself claim above is
insufficient? Anyway, I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm just saying that
as yet there is little or none for a lab-leak, and you have yet to
supply anything convincing to the contrary.

>>> The studies suggesting that the DNA sequences present in Covid-19 are
>>> unlikely to have evolved naturally and that it is highly unlikely that
>>> the virus could have crossed species are also worth mentioning.
>>
>> What studies? We hear about them, but no-one ever provides any credible
>> links in provenance. Until someone provides credible scientific
>> evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with the scientific evidence that
>> I've already researched at length and quoted here, and which I suppose
>> you still haven't bothered to read; hardly a recommendation for your
>> opinions, is it?
>
> Opinions be damned. Facts matter.

Then stop stating your own opinions as if they were facts and supply
some actual facts, as in *SCIENTIFIC* facts, as you were requested to do
immediately above, but failed to do.

> The joint study you seem to think is
> the most legitimate was not allowed to investigate a particular avenue
> of enquiry. That is unscientific.

But it's the best we've got, and they were able to draw some
conclusions, and independently of them others have analysed the virus
genome and come to similar conclusions.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/11/2021 14:02, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:46:52 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2021 13:06, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:34:25 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> that was his job you numpty!
>>
>> Nonsense, it was his job to protect the American people and promote
>> their best interests,
>
> ie, he's your mummy
>
> there is a social scientist who regards socialists as looking
> for mummy and rightists looking for daddy...

Another irrelevant and vacuous so-called 'contribution', which like the
others beforehand tells us much more about the deficiencies of your own
thinking than it does about the subject in hand.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/11/2021 14:13, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 14:04:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2021 13:58, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:35:05 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2021 13:02, abelard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> you are far distant from 'science'
>>>>
>>>> In all the irrelevant pompous twaddle that you have supplied in this
>>>> thread, you have been far removed from supplying anything even remotely
>>>> factual, let alone anything that could be classed as scientific method
>>>> or reasoning.
>>>
>>> you content factor is.....zero...again
>>
>> I think you must be looking in a mirror; I've provided evidence at
>> length in this thread to support my views, whereas you have provided
>> absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever.
>
> you content factor is.....zero...again

I think you must be looking in a mirror; I've provided evidence at
length in this thread to support my views, whereas you have provided
absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever, that's nothing as in zilch,
zero, nada, nowt.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 13:58:32 UTC, Pamela wrote:
> On 08:18 9 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
> > In article <smc6km$790$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
> >> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
> >> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
> >> live with what is around now.
> >
> > Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for this.
> >
> > It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
> > EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
> > that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
> >
> > Bob.
>
> If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
> virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?
>
> Where does this Wuhan debate lead to?

That the PRC are in violation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention, which they acceded to. I.e. they are breaking a treaty.

>
> Does apportioning blame satisfy someone's agenda or score points?

Well it would be nice if they stopped doing it and avoided further accidents.

On 16:18 10 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:

> On 10/11/2021 14:02, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:46:52 +0000, Java Jive
>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2021 13:06, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:34:25 +0000, Java Jive
>>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> 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
>>>>
>>>> that was his job you numpty!
>>>
>>> Nonsense, it was his job to protect the American people and
>>> promote their best interests,
>>
>> ie, he's your mummy
>>
>> there is a social scientist who regards socialists as looking
>> for mummy and rightists looking for daddy...
>
> Another irrelevant and vacuous so-called 'contribution', which like
> the others beforehand tells us much more about the deficiencies of
> your own thinking than it does about the subject in hand.

Abelard is much changed from the time he had an interesting web site
and is now in his dotage. He babbles nonsense and constantly makes
jibes. It's a pity.

He holds court in "uk.politics.misc" which I included in my original
message.

On 16:20 10 Nov 2021, R. Mark Clayton said:

> On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 13:58:32 UTC, Pamela wrote:
>> On 08:18 9 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>>
>> > In article <smc6km$790$1...@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
>> > <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin
>> >> was because it has already spread world wide and is mutating
>> >> naturally enough, so that there are few original versions left
>> >> and we have to live with what is around now.
>> >
>> > Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for
>> > this.
>> >
>> > It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and
>> > the EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the
>> > lab. Is that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that
>> > plan?
>> >
>> > Bob.
>>
>> If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored
>> weaponised virus which leaked then how does that make any practical
>> difference?
>>
>> Where does this Wuhan debate lead to?
>
> That the PRC are in violation of the
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention, which
> they acceded to. I.e. they are breaking a treaty.

Thanks for the link. Art.VI there shows China holds a veto against
being charged with violations. It shouldn't be like that in such a
situation as we now have but that's realpolitik.

Our energies are better directed towards finding a way to handle the
pandemic than point a finger, not matter how justly that might have
been done. Isn't it on the lines of blaming the Serbs for
assassinating Franz Ferdinand and unleashing a colossal war? It's too
late, sadly.

On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
>>> as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
>>> still that the virus started naturally.
>>
>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>
> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!

How do you know what I read? I gave you a number of links stating
that further information is needed but is being blocked by China.
That's how we know that there is insufficient evidence.

>> For
>> someone who claims familiarity with the scientific method, I find it
>> astounding that you think it scientific to ignore certain avenues of
>> enquiry.
>
> How can I be other than ignoring what you yourself claim above is
> insufficient? Anyway, I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm just saying that
> as yet there is little or none for a lab-leak, and you have yet to
> supply anything convincing to the contrary.

Someone who claims to have read all of the evidence will be aware of the
independent DNA analysis, unless of course you're referring to
"evidence" as that which China has approved.

>>>> The studies suggesting that the DNA sequences present in Covid-19 are
>>>> unlikely to have evolved naturally and that it is highly unlikely that
>>>> the virus could have crossed species are also worth mentioning.
>>>
>>> What studies? We hear about them, but no-one ever provides any credible
>>> links in provenance. Until someone provides credible scientific
>>> evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with the scientific evidence that
>>> I've already researched at length and quoted here, and which I suppose
>>> you still haven't bothered to read; hardly a recommendation for your
>>> opinions, is it?
>>
>> Opinions be damned. Facts matter.
>
> Then stop stating your own opinions as if they were facts and supply
> some actual facts, as in *SCIENTIFIC* facts, as you were requested to do
> immediately above, but failed to do.

Surely you should be aware of this line of research?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0

"While a natural origin is still possible and the search for a
potential host in nature should continue, the amount of peculiar
genetic features identified in SARS-CoV-2′s genome does not rule out a
possible gain-of-function origin, which should be therefore discussed
in an open scientific debate."

Your claim that a zoonotic origin is the likeliest cause of Covid-19
really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

>> The joint study you seem to think is
>> the most legitimate was not allowed to investigate a particular avenue
>> of enquiry. That is unscientific.
>
> But it's the best we've got, and they were able to draw some
> conclusions, and independently of them others have analysed the virus
> genome and come to similar conclusions.

If a flawed study subverted by China is the best we've got then perhaps
we should follow the recommendations of the BMJ and WHO and investigate
further in order to acquire some conclusive evidence. Who in their
right mind would accept conclusions drawn from evidence carefully
curated by a secretive government who only seemingly cooperated even in
that capacity on the condition that a lab leak investigation was not on
the agenda?

I know Pamela thinks me too conspiratorial but you really are sounding
like a shill for China at this juncture.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:03:03 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
>>>> as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
>>>> still that the virus started naturally.
>>>
>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>>
>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
>
>How do you know what I read? I gave you a number of links stating
>that further information is needed but is being blocked by China.
>That's how we know that there is insufficient evidence.
>
>>> For
>>> someone who claims familiarity with the scientific method, I find it
>>> astounding that you think it scientific to ignore certain avenues of
>>> enquiry.
>>
>> How can I be other than ignoring what you yourself claim above is
>> insufficient? Anyway, I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm just saying that
>> as yet there is little or none for a lab-leak, and you have yet to
>> supply anything convincing to the contrary.
>
>Someone who claims to have read all of the evidence will be aware of the
>independent DNA analysis, unless of course you're referring to
>"evidence" as that which China has approved.
>
>>>>> The studies suggesting that the DNA sequences present in Covid-19 are
>>>>> unlikely to have evolved naturally and that it is highly unlikely that
>>>>> the virus could have crossed species are also worth mentioning.
>>>>
>>>> What studies? We hear about them, but no-one ever provides any credible
>>>> links in provenance. Until someone provides credible scientific
>>>> evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with the scientific evidence that
>>>> I've already researched at length and quoted here, and which I suppose
>>>> you still haven't bothered to read; hardly a recommendation for your
>>>> opinions, is it?
>>>
>>> Opinions be damned. Facts matter.
>>
>> Then stop stating your own opinions as if they were facts and supply
>> some actual facts, as in *SCIENTIFIC* facts, as you were requested to do
>> immediately above, but failed to do.
>
>Surely you should be aware of this line of research?
>
>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0
>
> "While a natural origin is still possible and the search for a
> potential host in nature should continue, the amount of peculiar
> genetic features identified in SARS-CoV-2?s genome does not rule out a
> possible gain-of-function origin, which should be therefore discussed
> in an open scientific debate."
>
>Your claim that a zoonotic origin is the likeliest cause of Covid-19
>really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
>
>>> The joint study you seem to think is
>>> the most legitimate was not allowed to investigate a particular avenue
>>> of enquiry. That is unscientific.
>>
>> But it's the best we've got, and they were able to draw some
>> conclusions, and independently of them others have analysed the virus
>> genome and come to similar conclusions.
>
>If a flawed study subverted by China is the best we've got then perhaps
>we should follow the recommendations of the BMJ and WHO and investigate
>further in order to acquire some conclusive evidence. Who in their
>right mind would accept conclusions drawn from evidence carefully
>curated by a secretive government who only seemingly cooperated even in
>that capacity on the condition that a lab leak investigation was not on
>the agenda?
>
>I know Pamela thinks me too conspiratorial but you really are sounding
>like a shill for China at this juncture.

they're only 6

do you think they'll grow up to be childhood sweethearts?

On 10/11/2021 17:03, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
>>>> as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
>>>> still that the virus started naturally.
>>>
>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>>
>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
>
> How do you know what I read?

I posted a great deal of evidence that you refused to read, then you
claim that the scientific evidence is insufficient to claim the virus is
most likely to be zoonotic in origin, but you can't possibly say that
without reading all the evidence offered, and have admitted yourself
that you had not done this.

> I gave you a number of links stating
> that further information is needed but is being blocked by China.
> That's how we know that there is insufficient evidence.

Indeed, and I haven't disagreed with or disputed them, but they were
political not *SCIENTIFIC* evidence. Meanwhile, we do have scientific
evidence, both from the mission and others who have analysed the virus
genome, and they are agreed that the most likely source is zoonotic, and
the least likely man-made.

>>> For
>>> someone who claims familiarity with the scientific method, I find it
>>> astounding that you think it scientific to ignore certain avenues of
>>> enquiry.
>>
>> How can I be other than ignoring what you yourself claim above is
>> insufficient? Anyway, I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm just saying that
>> as yet there is little or none for a lab-leak, and you have yet to
>> supply anything convincing to the contrary.
>
> Someone who claims to have read all of the evidence will be aware of the
> independent DNA analysis, unless of course you're referring to
> "evidence" as that which China has approved.

Yet *STILL* you haven't linked to any *SCIENTIFIC* evidence to support
the lab-leak origin. You claim immediately above that it exists, so
where is it?

>>>>> The studies suggesting that the DNA sequences present in Covid-19 are
>>>>> unlikely to have evolved naturally and that it is highly unlikely that
>>>>> the virus could have crossed species are also worth mentioning.
>>>>
>>>> What studies? We hear about them, but no-one ever provides any credible
>>>> links in provenance. Until someone provides credible scientific
>>>> evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with the scientific evidence that
>>>> I've already researched at length and quoted here, and which I suppose
>>>> you still haven't bothered to read; hardly a recommendation for your
>>>> opinions, is it?
>>>
>>> Opinions be damned. Facts matter.
>>
>> Then stop stating your own opinions as if they were facts and supply
>> some actual facts, as in *SCIENTIFIC* facts, as you were requested to do
>> immediately above, but failed to do.
>
> Surely you should be aware of this line of research?
>
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0
>
> "While a natural origin is still possible and the search for a
> potential host in nature should continue, the amount of peculiar
> genetic features identified in SARS-CoV-2′s genome does not rule out a
> possible gain-of-function origin, which should be therefore discussed
> in an open scientific debate."
>
> Your claim that a zoonotic origin is the likeliest cause of Covid-19
> really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The above research is later than earlier research done by two of its
authors that makes similar claims with a rather different slant, but I
think we can put down any inconsistencies between the two as part of the
learning curve as new information emerges. However, both papers predate
the following, which changes everything, and was one of the items I
reported upon in my long posts which you couldn't be arsed to read:

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

"Previous studies have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 is likely to have come
from insectivorous bats, given its genomic proximity with various bat
coronaviruses. But until now no coronaviruses in bats had presented a
receptor-binding domain that effectively recognizes the receptor in
human cells, like the receptor-binding domain identified in SARS-CoV-2.
To identify the existence of SARS-CoV-2-related animal coronaviruses in
the natural environment, a team of Lao scientists carried out a field
mission on bats living in limestone habitats in northern Laos.

Scientists from the Institut Pasteur du Laos and the Faculty of
Environmental Sciences at the National University of Laos took samples
from the bats. Their colleagues from the Institut Pasteur, Université de
Paris and the Alfort National Veterinary School (EnvA) then sequenced
the genomes of the viruses discovered. They identified three viruses in
particular (BANAL-103, BANAL-236 and BANAL-52) with genomic similarities
to SARS-CoV-2, especially in a key domain of the spike protein that
enables the virus to bind to host cells. Using direct affinity
measurements, crystallography and computational simulations of molecular
dynamics, the scientists demonstrated that the affinity of these three
bat coronaviruses for the human ACE2 receptor is similar to that of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that they are also able to enter human cells via
the same receptor."

>>> The joint study you seem to think is
>>> the most legitimate was not allowed to investigate a particular avenue
>>> of enquiry. That is unscientific.
>>
>> But it's the best we've got, and they were able to draw some
>> conclusions, and independently of them others have analysed the virus
>> genome and come to similar conclusions.
>
> If a flawed study subverted by China is the best we've got then perhaps
> we should follow the recommendations of the BMJ and WHO and investigate
> further in order to acquire some conclusive evidence. Who in their
> right mind would accept conclusions drawn from evidence carefully
> curated by a secretive government who only seemingly cooperated even in
> that capacity on the condition that a lab leak investigation was not on
> the agenda?
>
> I know Pamela thinks me too conspiratorial but you really are sounding
> like a shill for China at this juncture.

No, I'm just following where the science leads me, as you should be, and
it leads as above.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/11/2021 18:33, abelard wrote:
>
> they're only 6
>
> do you think they'll grow up to be childhood sweethearts?

Will you ever grow up at all? Arsehole!

--

Fake news kills!

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