In article <smm67c$m0d$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> 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

if you remember the first person who said there was a problem was
immediately arrested. Subsequently freed, he died Of Covid, we are told)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <smln03$5oh$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> 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". 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.

Can't comment on the claims about the source of covid. But can agree that
both visitors and those working permanently at some types of R&D site will
only be allowed a very controlled access to types of info, etc. Even when
daft, some in such places use "I know something you don't know" as a way to
indicate they are 'superior'. Valuable card when people are jostling for
internal 'status'. In companies as well as in government establishments.

That said, you can often work out what *is* happening if you have enough
understanding of a topic to be able to 'spot what no-one is saying'. I've
hit a 'bingo' more than once that way. And it can be quite funny when
people play the above games when you have worked out already what they are
using as 'cards'. :-)

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 12/11/2021 16:53, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> 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.

This is all supposition from an over running imagination ...

Firstly, who said anything about *political* security clearances being
required to work there in the first place? Presumably they would have
needed a visa to work in China, and the Chinese would have checked the
credentials of foreigners who wished to visit or work at the lab for
anything that aroused their suspicious, and accordingly granted or not a
visa to do so, but apart from that perfectly normal situation which is
no different from what the UK would do for a Chinese person visiting or
working in the UK, from what I have been able to gather, the clearances
required were those of being able to work at a suitable level of
*biological* security.

Secondly, now that they're no longer working there, because of Trump's
pulling the funding, why would anyone from outside of China, who
previously worked there and who saw anything suspicious, not want to
give the world such a critically important piece of information?

In this respect, it is illuminating to research not just the origins of
covid-19 itself, but the origins of the various conspiracy theories
about its origin (my caps):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses

"Bio-weapon

One early source of the bio-weapon origin theory was former Israeli
secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The
Washington Times about the biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory at the
Wuhan Institute of Virology.[60][61] A scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng
Yan, fled China and released a preprint stating the virus was modified
in a lab rather than having a natural evolution. In an ad hoc
peer-review (as the paper was not submitted for traditional peer review
as part of the standard scientific publishing process), her claims were
labelled as misleading, unscientific, and an unethical promotion of
"essentially conspiracy theories that are not founded in fact".[62]
YAN'S PAPER WAS FUNDED BY THE RULE OF LAW SOCIETY AND THE RULE OF LAW
FOUNDATION, TWO NON-PROFITS LINKED TO STEVE BANNON, A FORMER TRUMP
STRATEGIST, AND GUO WENGUI, AN EXPATRIATE CHINESE BILLIONAIRE.[63] This
misinformation was further seized on by the American far-right, who have
been known to promote distrust of China. In effect, this formed "a
fast-growing echo chamber for misinformation".[43] The idea of
SARS-CoV-2 as a lab-engineered weapon is an element of the Plandemic
conspiracy theory, which proposes that it was deliberately released by
China.[59]"

So there is one of the earliest versions of these conspiracy theories,
perhaps even the earliest, having an indirect link to Donald Trump at
the time he was president, and direct links to two people of dubious
character, concerning which see below, but first it is also interesting
to look up some of the details of the non-profits mentioned:

The 'Rule Of Law Society' website is effectively dead and for sale ...

h t t p s : / / t h e r u l e o f l a w s o c i e t y . c o m /

.... and its present ownership carefully hidden ...

https://whois.domaintools.com/theruleoflawsociety.com

Registrant REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Org REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Etc, etc.

For a political pressure group, this is extraordinarily coy.

The 'Rule Of Law Foundation' website is extant, but reveals that it is
an overtly political organisation ...

h t t p s : / / w w w . r o l f o u n d a t i o n . o r g / e n /

"Vision

To permit the people of China to live under a national system based on
the rule of law, independent of the political system of the People’s
Republic of China (“China”).

Mission

To expose corruption, obstruction, illegality, brutality, false
imprisonment, excessive sentencing, harassment, and inhumanity pervasive
in the political, legal, business and financial systems of China."

TBH, I'm astonished that it passes IRS conditions for a non-profit
charity, but that's a matter for US law, not for me. More importantly,
again we don't know what individuals own the website:

https://whois.domaintools.com/rolfoundation.org

"Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC"

So who are the people behind the bogus paper?

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/252635/20200917/fact-check-research-paper-by-li-meng-yan-backed-up-by-rule-of-law-foundation-who-are-behind-this-organization.htm

"Besides Yan, three other people were listed as the paper's co-authors,
but it appears as though they did not have any previous research works
and that their credentials were not included on the paper, as well as
their role in the study.

[...]

According to a report by SCMP, the organization behind Li-Meng Yan's
paper comprises of two New York-based charities that were funded by
Chinese businessman Guo Wengui in 2018 when he donated $100 million.

It is also linked to a former White House chief strategist, Steve
Bannon, who identifies himself as the chairman of the Rule of Law Society,

[...]

For those who are not aware, Guo was a real estate tycoon in China;
however, he fled to the United States in 2014 from the country after
learning that an associate has been arrested for corruption charges.

[...]

Nevertheless, Bannon was arrested last month in Guo's yacht in
Connecticut after he was charged with defrauding donors in a private
fund-raising effort known as We Build the Wall, according to a report by
The New York Times.

[...]

After Yan's claims, her colleagues at the University of Hong Kong also
dismissed her theories."

So scientifically, the papers has been discredited on all fronts, and we
find it was supported by two individuals with a history of corruption.

To return finally to the Wiki article linked above, there are lots more
conspiracy theories about the origins of covid-19 debunked in it; mostly
they can be summarised as lots of ill-informed rumour and bugger all
fact, and what little fact there is usually has been twisted out of all
reality to fit the particular conspiracy theory narrative.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/11/2021 17:21, Pamela wrote:
>
> On 15:52 12 Nov 2021, The Iceberg said:
>>
>> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 13:55:36 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> 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

But I note you didn't include any of the various subsequent reports
which stated that:
- She had no ongoing direct links with WIV, only that ...
- She visited to set it up at the appropriate bio-security level;
- She responded to a request for samples from there by sending some
which did *NOT* include SARS-Cov samples, they were of ebola, etc;
- There are wider security issues at the Canadian lab.

For example, here's just one subsequent report:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/nml-scientists-speak-out-1.6090188

"Mystery around 2 fired scientists points to larger issues at Canada's
high-security lab, former colleagues say

Two leading scientists are standing by a pair of researchers fired from
Canada's only Level-4 virology lab, instead pointing the finger at
issues inside the Winnipeg-based facility itself.

Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and her biologist husband, Keding Cheng, were stripped
of their security clearances and escorted from the National Microbiology
Lab (NML) in July 2019.

They were then fired in January, though the Public Health Agency of
Canada has refused to say why. A RCMP investigation is also ongoing; no
charges have been laid.

[...]

Now two former colleagues are speaking out, saying that speculation is
wrong.

Intellectual property dispute

For the past two years, Gary Kobinger has been watching the case with
dismay and disbelief from his lab at Laval University.

As head of the NML's special pathogens unit until 2016, Kobinger and Qiu
worked closely together and were internationally acclaimed for creating
ZMapp, an Ebola treatment that has saved thousands of lives in West Africa.

[...]

After talking with Qiu and other government scientists, Kobinger said he
believes the incident started when Qiu was travelling to China — with
the NML's knowledge and approval — to help set up a Level-4 lab in Wuhan.

Someone at PHAC was concerned she was sharing proprietary information
about biosafety protocols and safe work flows, Kobinger said.

But it's something done regularly between colleagues, he said, "so that
they don't have to reinvent the wheel and they don't have to repeat the
mistakes of the past."

The article also goes on to discuss other intellectual property issues.

> 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?

Certainly seems devious, he would have had to make a change specifically
to do that.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/11/2021 21:22, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 16:53, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> This is all supposition from an over running imagination ...

<Snip going off at a tangent>

You obviously haven't worked in any highly sensitive areas, and you have
not recognised the "Need to know" culture that exists there.

There are a lot more reasons for creating sensitive areas than political
ones. I am not going to explain what in a public forum like this,
because I do recognise a "Need to know" requirement.

I shall say no more about it.

Jim

On 12/11/2021 23:40, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2021 21:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/2021 16:53, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/11/2021 13:20, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> That is a huge penalty for simply saying there was a closed area and
>>> they have no idea what goes on in there.
>>
>> This is all supposition from an over running imagination ...
>
> <Snip going off at a tangent>

How is researching the origin of a conspiracy theory of the sort that
you have chosen to believe in 'going off at a tangent'?

> You obviously haven't worked in any highly sensitive areas, and you have
> not recognised the "Need to know" culture that exists there.

Actually, I've worked in an MOD building where each PC had a removable
HD that had to be locked in a safe overnight.

> There are a lot more reasons for creating sensitive areas than political
> ones.  I am not going to explain what in a public forum like this,
> because I do recognise a "Need to know" requirement.
>
> I shall say no more about it.

Fine, my reply that you've snipped will still be readable by others,
even if you don't wish to read it.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/11/2021 00:39, Java Jive wrote:

>
> Fine, my reply that you've snipped will still be readable by others,
> even if you don't wish to read it.
>
I did read it.

On 13/11/2021 00:39, Java Jive wrote:

> Actually, I've worked in an MOD building where each PC had a removable
> HD that had to be locked in a safe overnight.

That's a function of a 'clear desk' policy, which should-operate pretty
much everywhere. It doesn't mean you had access to TOP SECRET UMBRA
VENONA. Your description would fit that of a cleaner.

--
Spike

On 12/11/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 13:19, Spike wrote:

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

>>> 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!

You really are green when it comes to this sort of thing.

> 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".

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 - which is that there are differing opinions among
scientists. No matter how much you shout "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" the
matter is /not/ settled in favour of the meat-market assertion. One
wonders why you continue to bang this particular drum with such ferocity.

--
Spike

On 11:15 13 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> On 12/11/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 13:19, Spike wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2021 11:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>
> You really are green when it comes to this sort of thing.
>
>> 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".
>
> 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 - which is that there are
> differing opinions among scientists. No matter how much you shout
> "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" the matter is /not/ settled in favour of the
> meat-market assertion. One wonders why you continue to bang this
> particular drum with such ferocity.

What does Jean-Paul Juncker have to say about this? Didn't you say it
was something like "We will destroy you and your laboratory"? :)

In article <iv9cfrFe7ntU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 00:39, Java Jive wrote:

> > Actually, I've worked in an MOD building where each PC had a removable
> > HD that had to be locked in a safe overnight.

> That's a function of a 'clear desk' policy, which should-operate pretty
> much everywhere. It doesn't mean you had access to TOP SECRET UMBRA
> VENONA. Your description would fit that of a cleaner.

So far as I recall, the cleaners didn't have to do this. But then they
might not have had a desk, either. :-)

I do recall the milkman who drove his float from building to bulding did
have an 'unaccompanied' badge, though.

Mind you, I don't go back to the time when terms like 'venona' were active.
So maybe they did back then. But not sure it overlapped with removable HDs
being used at all. ;->

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 13/11/2021 11:28, Pamela wrote:
> On 11:15 13 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> On 12/11/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:

>>> 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".

>> 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 - which is that there are
>> differing opinions among scientists. No matter how much you shout
>> "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" the matter is /not/ settled in favour of the
>> meat-market assertion. One wonders why you continue to bang this
>> particular drum with such ferocity.

> What does Jean-Paul Juncker have to say about this? Didn't you say it
> was something like "We will destroy you and your laboratory"? :)

He may have been making a causation out of a correlation...

--
Spike

On 13/11/2021 11:15, Spike wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> 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!
>
> You really are green when it comes to this sort of thing.

That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the argument,
because you're going for the man.

>> 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".
>
> Nonsense, you are not bringing to the table evidence about this
> outbreak,

Nonsense, it's about the very lab that you wish to believe started the
outbreak.

> whereas I'm going on what is scientifically known
> at the current time - which is that there are differing opinions among
> scientists.

However much you try to appear superficially slick by quoting some of my
own words back at me, the fact remains that the above is *NOT* an
accurate summary of the weight of scientific evidence. As things
currently stand, and I've given a number of links to scientific research
to support this statement, the weight of scientific evidence does *NOT*
support the lab-leak theory.

> One
> wonders why you continue to bang this particular drum with such ferocity.

I'm banging no other drum than that of where the *SCIENTIFIC* evidence
currently points.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 11:15, Spike wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:

>>> 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!

>> You really are green when it comes to this sort of thing.

> That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the argument,
> because you're going for the man.

It's *EVIDENCE*!

*EVIDENCE* that you don't know what you're talking about - if you did
really know, you wouldn't say that.

>>> 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".

>> Nonsense, you are not bringing to the table evidence about this
>> outbreak,

> Nonsense, it's about the very lab that you wish to believe started the
> outbreak.

>> whereas I'm going on what is scientifically known
>> at the current time - which is that there are differing opinions among
>> scientists.

> However much you try to appear superficially slick by quoting some of my
> own words back at me

I do that because what you say can with equal veracity be used against you.

> the fact remains that the above is *NOT* an
> accurate summary of the weight of scientific evidence. As things
> currently stand, and I've given a number of links to scientific research
> to support this statement, the weight of scientific evidence does *NOT*
> support the lab-leak theory.

If you knew anything about science, you wouldn't say such silly things.

You post *EVIDENCE* in your favour, but totally fail to mention
*EVIDENCE* that doesn't agree with you.

And then there's the problem of what 'weight' you give to both sides,
which is a judgement rather than a scientific fact.

>> One wonders why you continue to bang this particular drum with such ferocity.

> I'm banging no other drum than that of where the *SCIENTIFIC* evidence
> currently points.

There are two drums here, and you're only banging one. That's not science.

--
Spike

On 14:33 13 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 11:15, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> whereas I'm going on what is scientifically known at the current
>>> time - which is that there are differing opinions among
>>> scientists.
>>
>> However much you try to appear superficially slick by quoting some
>> of my own words back at me
>
> I do that because what you say can with equal veracity be used
> against you.

When you play the same echo game with me it's because you're an idiot.

On 13/11/2021 14:33, Spike wrote:
>
> On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 13/11/2021 11:15, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/11/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>
>>> You really are green when it comes to this sort of thing.
>>
>> That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the argument,
>> because you're going for the man.
>
> It's *EVIDENCE*!
>
> *EVIDENCE* that you don't know what you're talking about - if you did
> really know, you wouldn't say that.

FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good sci-tech
degree, whereas you?

>>>> 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".
>>>
>>> Nonsense, you are not bringing to the table evidence about this
>>> outbreak,
>>
>> Nonsense, it's about the very lab that you wish to believe started the
>> outbreak.
>>
>>> whereas I'm going on what is scientifically known
>>> at the current time - which is that there are differing opinions among
>>> scientists.
>>
>> However much you try to appear superficially slick by quoting some of my
>> own words back at me
>
> I do that because what you say can with equal veracity be used against you.

On the contrary, I was quoting something directly relating to the WIV,
whereas you have been quoting merely unrelated historical events.

>> the fact remains that the above is *NOT* an
>> accurate summary of the weight of scientific evidence. As things
>> currently stand, and I've given a number of links to scientific research
>> to support this statement, the weight of scientific evidence does *NOT*
>> support the lab-leak theory.
>
> If you knew anything about science, you wouldn't say such silly things.

FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good sci-tech
degree, whereas you?

> You post *EVIDENCE* in your favour, but totally fail to mention
> *EVIDENCE* that doesn't agree with you.

FALSE CLAIM! On the contrary, I linked to a report that the Chinese
(presumably) had tried to make a paper hard to find.

> And then there's the problem of what 'weight' you give to both sides,
> which is a judgement rather than a scientific fact.

FALSE CLAIM! It's not my judgement, but the scientific judgement of
most experts in the field that the weight of scientific evidence as
currently known points to a natural origin for SARS-Cov-2, I have linked
to various lines of evidence in support of that, while you have failed
totally to provide any convincing evidence at all to the contrary.

>>> One wonders why you continue to bang this particular drum with such ferocity.
>
>> I'm banging no other drum than that of where the *SCIENTIFIC* evidence
>> currently points.
>
> There are two drums here, and you're only banging one. That's not science.

It's not science to favour a conspiracy theory against the weight of
known evidence.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 14:33, Spike wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 11:15, Spike wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:

>>>>> 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!

>>>> You really are green when it comes to this sort of thing.

>>> That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the argument,
>>> because you're going for the man.

>> It's *EVIDENCE*!

>> *EVIDENCE* that you don't know what you're talking about - if you did
>> really know, you wouldn't say that.

> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good sci-tech
> degree, whereas you?

You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation, or you
wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "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".

>>>> Nonsense, you are not bringing to the table evidence about this
>>>> outbreak,

> On the contrary, I was quoting something directly relating to the WIV,
> whereas you have been quoting merely unrelated historical events.

But that's your problem - you are only presenting one side of the case,
as if it is the only possible one. That's not scientific. There is
evidence out there that conflicts with your view, and other scientists
that support that evidence. You are reduced to quoting someone who says
he worked there for 15 years and never saw anything. I suspect he hasn't
got a good degree in Secure Area Management and Operation either.

>>> the fact remains that the above is *NOT* an
>>> accurate summary of the weight of scientific evidence. As things
>>> currently stand, and I've given a number of links to scientific research
>>> to support this statement, the weight of scientific evidence does *NOT*
>>> support the lab-leak theory.

>> If you knew anything about science, you wouldn't say such silly things.

> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good sci-tech
> degree, whereas you?

ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM!

>> You post *EVIDENCE* in your favour, but totally fail to mention
>> *EVIDENCE* that doesn't agree with you.

> FALSE CLAIM! On the contrary, I linked to a report that the Chinese
> (presumably) had tried to make a paper hard to find.

What about the SCIENTIFIC evidence, then?

>> And then there's the problem of what 'weight' you give to both sides,
>> which is a judgement rather than a scientific fact.

> FALSE CLAIM! It's not my judgement, but the scientific judgement of
> most experts in the field

ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM! ARGUMENTUM AD POPULEM!

> I have linked
> to various lines of evidence in support of that, while you have failed
> totally to provide any convincing evidence at all to the contrary.

Unless you have some form of special vision, when you were performing
your literature search on the subject you will have found ALL the
evidence, then apparently you sifted it according to your predisposition.

>>>> One wonders why you continue to bang this particular drum with such ferocity.

>>> I'm banging no other drum than that of where the *SCIENTIFIC* evidence
>>> currently points.

>> There are two drums here, and you're only banging one. That's not science.

> It's not science to favour a conspiracy theory against the weight of
> known evidence.

But that's not what you did.

--
Spike

On 13/11/2021 17:06, Spike wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 14:33, Spike wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2021 11:15, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>> You really are green when it comes to this sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the argument,
>>>> because you're going for the man.
>>>
>>> It's *EVIDENCE*!
>>>
>>> *EVIDENCE* that you don't know what you're talking about - if you did
>>> really know, you wouldn't say that.
>>
>> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good sci-tech
>> degree, whereas you?
>
> You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation, or you
> wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "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!"

Yet, in the Canadian lab debacle where Chinese scientists, a married
couple, were arrested, people *are* prepared to talk about it.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology

"Scientists such as U.S. molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright, who had
expressed concern of previous escapes of the SARS virus at Chinese
laboratories in Beijing and had been troubled by the pace and scale of
China's plans for expansion into BSL-4 laboratories,[4] called the
institute a "world-class research institution that does world-class
research in virology and immunology" while he noted that the WIV is a
world leader in the study of bat coronaviruses.[12]"

>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense, you are not bringing to the table evidence about this
>>>>> outbreak,
>>
>> On the contrary, I was quoting something directly relating to the WIV,
>> whereas you have been quoting merely unrelated historical events.
>
> But that's your problem - you are only presenting one side of the case,
> as if it is the only possible one. That's not scientific. There is
> evidence out there that conflicts with your view, and other scientists
> that support that evidence. You are reduced to quoting someone who says
> he worked there for 15 years and never saw anything. I suspect he hasn't
> got a good degree in Secure Area Management and Operation either.

Oh FFS! Stop making these laughable claims to superior knowledge - I
note that you still haven't told us what your qualifications are - and
stick to the known facts, to understand which you need to inform
yourself properly on the subject. Start by reading the entirety of the
above link, not just the part I've quoted.

>>>> the fact remains that the above is *NOT* an
>>>> accurate summary of the weight of scientific evidence. As things
>>>> currently stand, and I've given a number of links to scientific research
>>>> to support this statement, the weight of scientific evidence does *NOT*
>>>> support the lab-leak theory.
>
>>> If you knew anything about science, you wouldn't say such silly things.
>>
>> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good sci-tech
>> degree, whereas you?
>
> ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM!

Verbosus stultus. Know you that besides having a good sci-tech degree,
I also have O-level Latin, and it's not difficult to shame someone who
is now arguing irrationally. I note that while repeatedly stooping to
decrying the ability of others whom you have already been told have a
good sci-tech degree, you still haven't told us what your own
qualifications are.

>>> You post *EVIDENCE* in your favour, but totally fail to mention
>>> *EVIDENCE* that doesn't agree with you.
>
>> FALSE CLAIM! On the contrary, I linked to a report that the Chinese
>> (presumably) had tried to make a paper hard to find.
>
> What about the SCIENTIFIC evidence, then?

That was part of a SCIENTIFIC report.

>>> And then there's the problem of what 'weight' you give to both sides,
>>> which is a judgement rather than a scientific fact.
>
>> FALSE CLAIM! It's not my judgement, but the scientific judgement of
>> most experts in the field
>
> ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM! ARGUMENTUM AD POPULEM!

Adhuc stultus! However much you may dislike the fact, it *is* the
scientific judgement of most experts in the field.

>> I have linked
>> to various lines of evidence in support of that, while you have failed
>> totally to provide any convincing evidence at all to the contrary.
>
> Unless you have some form of special vision, when you were performing
> your literature search on the subject you will have found ALL the
> evidence, then apparently you sifted it according to your predisposition.

I found plenty of conspiracy theories, some even stupider than others,
but nothing substantiated by fact except two scientific reports which
were probably reasonable at the time but have since been outweighed by
more recent evidence.

>>>>> One wonders why you continue to bang this particular drum with such ferocity.
>>>>
>>>> I'm banging no other drum than that of where the *SCIENTIFIC* evidence
>>>> currently points.
>>>
>>> There are two drums here, and you're only banging one. That's not science.
>>
>> It's not science to favour a conspiracy theory against the weight of
>> known evidence.
>
> But that's not what you did.

No indeed, it's what you did.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:06:49 +0000
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 10/11/2021 12:50, Java Jive 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.
>
> 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.
>
>

Has Lesurf put the wind up you enough to deploy the old imaginary
kill-file, Burt?

That's interesting to know.

Burt, Thanks, Burt.

On 17:06 13 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 14:33, Spike wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2021 11:15, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>> You really are green when it comes to this sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the
>>>> argument, because you're going for the man.
>>>
>>> It's *EVIDENCE*!
>>>
>>> *EVIDENCE* that you don't know what you're talking about - if you
>>> did really know, you wouldn't say that.
>>
>> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good sci-tech
>> degree, whereas you?
>
> You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation, or
> you wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "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!"

Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you have a
science degree of any sort?

On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:
> On 17:06 13 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:

>>> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good sci-tech
>>> degree, whereas you?

>> You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation, or
>> you wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "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!"

> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you have a
> science degree of any sort?

Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a last-ditch
defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad verecundiam: he has 'a
'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level. You could always so some
critical thinking here, and ask yourself why it is that Java Jive has
taken this path rather than defend his selective 'evidence', instead of
joining him in his false-argument approach.

--
Spike

On 13/11/2021 18:04, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 17:06, Spike wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:

>>> I have a good sci-tech degree.

>> You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation, or you
>> wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "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!"

> Yet, in the Canadian lab debacle where Chinese scientists, a married
> couple, were arrested, people *are* prepared to talk about it.

Stick to Wuhan.

> See also:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology

> "Scientists such as U.S. molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright, who had
> expressed concern of previous escapes of the SARS virus at Chinese
> laboratories in Beijing and had been troubled by the pace and scale of
> China's plans for expansion into BSL-4 laboratories,[4] called the
> institute a "world-class research institution that does world-class
> research in virology and immunology" while he noted that the WIV is a
> world leader in the study of bat coronaviruses.[12]"

That's a puff-piece, not 'evidence'.

>>> I have a good sci-tech degree.

And here you are, still playing the argumentum ad verecundiam.

> I have a good sci-tech degree.

And here you are, still playing the argumentum ad verecundiam.

> I also have O-level Latin

And here you are, still playing the argumentum ad verecundiam.

>>> FALSE CLAIM! It's not my judgement, but the scientific judgement of
>>> most experts in the field

What has 'judgement' or a 'majority' got to do with science?

> Adhuc stultus! However much you may dislike the fact, it *is* the
> scientific judgement of most experts in the field.

What has 'judgement' or a 'majority' got to do with science?

> I found plenty of conspiracy theories, some even stupider than others,
> but nothing substantiated by fact except two scientific reports which
> were probably reasonable at the time but have since been outweighed by
> more recent evidence.

You have been careful, despite holding a 'good sci-tech degree', never
to have commented on the actions of the WHO, some of whose inspectors
had declared /before/ they were picked for the task, that their view was
that there had been no escape from WIV, or that in order to get anywhere
with the inspection the Chinese insisted that their report would either
have to not mention an escape of the virus, or say that it wasn't
important enough to pursue in the inspection. How many Chinese personnel
were on the the inspection team? I hope you never play poker, because
you can't see a stacked deck even when it's under your nose. The
advantage of a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level, one supposes.

Ne supra crepidam sutor judicaret.
..

--
Spike

On 10:56 14 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:
>> On 17:06 13 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>>> On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good
>>>> sci-tech degree, whereas you?
>>
>>> You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation,
>>> or you wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "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!"
>>
>> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you
>> have a science degree of any sort?
>
> Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a last-ditch
> defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad verecundiam: he has
> 'a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level. You could always so
> some critical thinking here, and ask yourself why it is that Java
> Jive has taken this path rather than defend his selective
> 'evidence', instead of joining him in his false-argument approach.

You still didn't answer the question. Do you have a science degree of
any sort? I presume you would have said so if you did. Please kindly
advise if I'm wrong.

By the way, someone with a qualification in Latin wouldn't act as if
quoting a Latin phrase, as you do, is impressive. There are perfectly
good English translations. I speak as someone else (apart from Java)
who also has a formal qualification in Latin.

In article <XnsADE288DD851F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10:56 14 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> > On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:
> >> On 17:06 13 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> >>> On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good
> >>>> sci-tech degree, whereas you?
> >>
> >>> You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation,
> >>> or you wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "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!"
> >>
> >> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you
> >> have a science degree of any sort?
> >
> > Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a last-ditch
> > defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad verecundiam: he has
> > 'a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level. You could always so
> > some critical thinking here, and ask yourself why it is that Java
> > Jive has taken this path rather than defend his selective
> > 'evidence', instead of joining him in his false-argument approach.
>
> You still didn't answer the question. Do you have a science degree of
> any sort? I presume you would have said so if you did. Please kindly
> advise if I'm wrong.
>
> By the way, someone with a qualification in Latin wouldn't act as if
> quoting a Latin phrase, as you do, is impressive. There are perfectly
> good English translations. I speak as someone else (apart from Java)
> who also has a formal qualification in Latin.

I, too, have Latin (& Greek) at O-Level.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 14/11/2021 11:20, Spike wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 18:04, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 17:06, Spike wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>> I have a good sci-tech degree.
>
>>> You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation, or you
>>> wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "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!"
>
>> Yet, in the Canadian lab debacle where Chinese scientists, a married
>> couple, were arrested, people *are* prepared to talk about it.
>
> Stick to Wuhan.

Hypocrite: 'Stick[ing] to Wuhan' didn't prevent you introducing all sort
irrelevant crap about Russia.

>> See also:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
>
>> "Scientists such as U.S. molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright, who had
>> expressed concern of previous escapes of the SARS virus at Chinese
>> laboratories in Beijing and had been troubled by the pace and scale of
>> China's plans for expansion into BSL-4 laboratories,[4] called the
>> institute a "world-class research institution that does world-class
>> research in virology and immunology" while he noted that the WIV is a
>> world leader in the study of bat coronaviruses.[12]"
>
> That's a puff-piece, not 'evidence'.

It's first-hand evidence from someone from outside China who had
actually seen the lab. And now here's someone who had actually worked
in it:

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

[Non-contiguous quotes]
"A US researcher who worked with a Wuhan virology lab gives 4 reasons
why a coronavirus leak would be extremely unlikely

Reason 1: The lab’s samples don’t match the new coronavirus

Reason 2: The lab implements rigorous safety protocols

Reason 3: The coronavirus is the latest in a long line of zoonotic
disease outbreaks

Reason 4: Everyday people are more likely to get infected than
researchers who wear protection"

>>>> I have a good sci-tech degree.
>
> And here you are, still playing the argumentum ad verecundiam.
>
>> I have a good sci-tech degree.
>
> And here you are, still playing the argumentum ad verecundiam.
>
>> I also have O-level Latin
>
> And here you are, still playing the argumentum ad verecundiam.

And here you are, still a hypocrite on two counts:

Firstly the use of a dead, now relatively obscure, and above all
irrelevant language is an obvious attempt to bolster your own feelings
of superiority, whereas my qualifications are relevant to this
discussion, so you are accusing me of trying to shame my opposition,
while you are trying to do the same by the use of Latin.

Secondly, here you are still, having declared that others "are not
scientific" or "If you knew anything about science, you wouldn't say
such silly things." but still being remarkably coy about your own
scientific qualifications. Tell us about them, do!

>>>> FALSE CLAIM! It's not my judgement, but the scientific judgement of
>>>> most experts in the field
>
> What has 'judgement' or a 'majority' got to do with science?

Considerably more than a fringe belief by non-scientists in conspiracy
theories.

>> Adhuc stultus! However much you may dislike the fact, it *is* the
>> scientific judgement of most experts in the field.
>
> What has 'judgement' or a 'majority' got to do with science?

Considerably more than a fringe belief by non-scientists in conspiracy
theories.

>> I found plenty of conspiracy theories, some even stupider than others,
>> but nothing substantiated by fact except two scientific reports which
>> were probably reasonable at the time but have since been outweighed by
>> more recent evidence.
>
> You have been careful, despite holding a 'good sci-tech degree', never
> to have commented on the actions of the WHO, some of whose inspectors
> had declared /before/ they were picked for the task, that their view was
> that there had been no escape from WIV, or that in order to get anywhere
> with the inspection the Chinese insisted that their report would either
> have to not mention an escape of the virus, or say that it wasn't
> important enough to pursue in the inspection. How many Chinese personnel
> were on the the inspection team?

The WIV offered to throw open its doors, but they weren't allowed to
make that decision, and yes, this is another double-edged post, like the
one I linked earlier, because it shows clear evidence of the Chinese
obstructing the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445

> I hope you never play poker, because
> you can't see a stacked deck even when it's under your nose. The
> advantage of a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level, one supposes.

The fact remains that, however much you may dislike it, the scientific
judgement of most experts in the field is that the virus did not
originate in a lab.

> Ne supra crepidam sutor judicaret.

How else are you going to judge the cobbler except by his sandal?
Analogous to which, you're so-called 'input' into this debate is
symptomatic of a very bad 'cobbler', more suggestive of 'cobblers' in fact.

--

Fake news kills!

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