Current Events > Jon Stewart is on my side with Lab Leak

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheVipaGTS posted...

lmao its still funny every time

I'm not sure what you get from being obviously wrong, but ok...

---

Choco posted...

50%
either it's true or it's not

That's not how probability works.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6m49HAfRmk

---

Joe numbers watches Saager? Who saw that coming

---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Joe numbers watches Saager? Who saw that coming

It's odd you single him out. Yes, I watch Krystal and Saagar of Breaking Points, formerly the Hill. Among many other people.

They seem quite good at reporting the news in a way that isn't just some mainstream narrative. And tend to direct their criticisms towards more appropriate people.

Why, are we still supposed to be worshipping Fauci?

---

You are still conflating "the virus was accidentally let out of the lab" and "the virus was engineered in the lab and accidentally let out".

The former is what people are saying is perhaps possible, the latter is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

But you know this. You've been told this far too many times over the past week to know this. So there's no reason to treat you as anything other than a troll.

---

COVxy posted...

You are still conflating "the virus was accidentally let out of the lab" and "the virus was engineered in the lab and accidentally let out".

The former is what people are saying is perhaps possible, the latter is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

But you know this. You've been told this far too many times over the past week to know this. So there's no reason to treat you as anything other than a troll.

I've made it consistently super clear this whole time that I have been saying that it is reasonable to think that it was meaningfully altered in gain of function research. idk if you think counts as "engineered" or not, but it is what most people now agree on as possible and what I have consistently been saying.

I'm not a troll just because you lack reading comprehension.

---

joe40001 posted...

I've made it consistently super clear this whole time that I have been saying that it is reasonable to think that it was meaningfully altered in gain of function research. idk if you think counts as "engineered" or not, but it is what most people now agree on as possible and what I have consistently been saying.

I'm not a troll just because you lack reading comprehension.

But nobody is saying that now that is more likely. Nobody has vindicated that position. It's still bullshit conspiracy theory.

---

COVxy posted...

But nobody is saying that now that is more likely. Nobody has vindicated that position. It's still bullshit conspiracy theory.

Nobody is saying that they were even possibly doing gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology? lol really? That's what you are going with?

---

I'm going with "there's no evidence that the virus was bioengineered".

---

COVxy posted...

I'm going with "there's no evidence that the virus was bioengineered".

Do you consider the changes that happen in Gain of Function research to be "bioengineering"?

---

Basically if you think there is no chance it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and that there is no chance it wasn't meaningfully altered in that lab, then you are just flat out wrong, both those things are plausible. As I have been saying from the start.

---

It's not about considering. It literally is...

---

COVxy posted...

It's not about considering. It literally is...

Ok, then if you are saying that you are wrong. There is plenty of evidence suggesting the Wuhan Institute of Virology did gain of function research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/18/fact-checking-senator-paul-dr-fauci-flap-over-wuhan-lab-funding/

The research was unequivocally gain-of-function research, Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University, a longtime critic of such research, told The Fact Checker. The research met the definition for gain-of-function research of concern under the 2014 Pause.

---

I think part of the problem is that you don't understand what gain of function is so you think it's crazy bioengineering hyper-science thing where a 90s hacker types in the DNA into a computer and it prints out evil virus.

---

That is certainly not evidence that sars-cov-2 was bioengineered lol.

---

Iodine posted...

How likely is this lab leak theory?

The answer to that will depend on what side of the political fence someone is on

---

I'll walk you through what you literally just said:

joe40001 posted...

Do you consider the changes that happen in Gain of Function research to be "bioengineering"?

COVxy posted...

It's not about considering. It literally is...

Then:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/18/fact-checking-senator-paul-dr-fauci-flap-over-wuhan-lab-funding/

The research was unequivocally gain-of-function research, Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University, a longtime critic of such research, told The Fact Checker. The research met the definition for gain-of-function research of concern under the 2014 Pause.

Now you are saying:

COVxy posted...

That is certainly not evidence that sars-cov-2 was bioengineered lol.

So what, you now are saying "ok, I will admit that it could have come from a lab (even though I previously mocked this idea) and ok, I will admit that that lab could have conducted gain of function research (even though I previously mocked this idea) but I am now mocking the idea that sars-cov-2 SPECIFICALLY was the product of gain of function research.

Is that where you are at now?

Does it distress you at all that you have now moved twice from positions that you thought were laughably impossible to "ok yeah sure that's plausible but..."

Like, maybe you shouldn't just ignorantly laugh and make assumptions about things when you apparently have no idea what you are talking about.

---

Gain of function research doesnt mean altering viruses, it means letting them replicate to see what mutations happen

---

WashYourHands posted...

The answer to that will depend on what side of the political fence someone is on

The answer some people will give will depend on what side of the political fence somebody is on. But the true answer will not, insofar as anybody can estimate probability on such things...

I believe good faith honest critical thinking people on both sides will come to similar estimates.

---

joe40001 posted...

even though I previously mocked this idea

Show me lol.

I am saying very clearly that there's no evidence that the sars-cov-2 virus was bioengineered. And in the face of no evidence, scientists tend to have appropriate priors, while conspiracy theorists such as your self jump to the most exciting possibility.

The idea that the virus was deliberately manipulated has been directed assessed by people much more knowledgeable about viral genetics than you or I. They have concluded that there's no evidence that it was deliberately manipulated.

You keep screaming zebras, I'm gonna say horses, with the rest of the scientific community.

---

thronedfire2 posted...

Gain of function research doesnt mean altering viruses, it means letting them replicate to see what mutations happen

Mutations are alterations. When something mutates it's different. It's changed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/
Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens.

---

TC doesn't seem like a very intelligent person

COVxy posted...

Show me lol.

So I have to be saving all your dumbass posts because later you'll claim to have never have made them?

You were part of the chorus of people who said lab leak was BS and you know it.

I am saying very clearly that there's no evidence that the sars-cov-2 virus was bioengineered.

Yet you call Gain of Function research bioengineering and acknowledge that the Wuhan Institute of Virology might have been doing gain of function research.

And you are wrong about real scientists. Real scientists acknowledge what plausible hypothesis are on the table, and the WIV doing gain of function research is plausible.

---

You still have a very tenuous relationship with the definition of possibly.

Something tells me they can prove it came from a wet market and you'll still feel like a winner.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

You still have a very tenuous relationship with the definition of possibly.

Something tells me they can prove it came from a wet market and you'll still feel like a winner.

It's not my fault idiots defined the rules so obtusely. "THERE'S NO WAY X IS POSSIBLE" is a pretty bold claim and thus an easy claim to debunk. And yeah, it's been easily debunked.

The only reason I'd still be a "winner" is because I never made a losing claim. I never said "there is no way it came from a wet market" but some idiots have said "there is no way it came from a lab"

Anyway, I really don't want to dive too deep again because some people people get mad whenever I post evidence/sources. But I've been consistently on the right side of things and largely haven't made any claims with more certainty than was due.

Meanwhile you have people like COVxy doubling down on "NO WAY IT'S POSSIBLE" shit even though we just got done with that kind of thinking blowing up in peoples faces. Any reasonable person entertains any reasonable possibility until sufficient data is gathered.

---

Not sure exactly what you're reading into my posts lol.

---

COVxy posted...

Not sure exactly what you're reading into my posts lol.

So, you are willing to say it's possible that the virus is the product of gain of function research?

---

joe40001 posted...

So, you are willing to say it's possible that the virus is the product of gain of function research?

Sure. It's also a possibility that Jesus himself was in that lab and let it out deliberately for His plans.

Possibility means something different than you think it does.

---

COVxy posted...

Sure. It's also a possibility that Jesus himself was in that lab and let it out deliberately for His plans.

Possibility means something different than you think it does.

Reasonably possible then? Plausible? Over 1% chance?

---

joe40001 posted...

Reasonably possible then? Plausible? Over 1% chance?

I think a priori it's more likely that it was accidentally released than it was accidentally release and bioengineered. Hbu?

---

joe40001 posted...

It's not my fault idiots defined the rules so obtusely. "THERE'S NO WAY X IS POSSIBLE" is a pretty bold claim and thus an easy claim to debunk. And yeah, it's been easily debunked.

The only reason I'd still be a "winner" is because I never made a losing claim. I never said "there is no way it came from a wet market" but some idiots have said "there is no way it came from a lab"

Anyway, I really don't want to dive too deep again because some people people get mad whenever I post evidence/sources. But I've been consistently on the right side of things and largely haven't made any claims with more certainty than was due.

Meanwhile you have people like COVxy doubling down on "NO WAY IT'S POSSIBLE" shit even though we just got done with that kind of thinking blowing up in peoples faces. Any reasonable person entertains any reasonable possibility until sufficient data is gathered.

How can you be on the right side if no one has an answer yet?

And it's so dishonest to act as if last year there were tons of people going "idk where it came from, but one possibility is an accidental lab leak". They were called idiots for insisting that it was a deliberately bioengineered weapon, or that the communist Democrats were involved, or some Bill Gates scheme to push his microchips.


---

COVxy posted...

I think a priori it's more likely that it was accidentally released than it was accidentally release and bioengineered. Hbu?

What research do you think they did on it then? Just stare at it under a bunch of microscopes and that's it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANRs4DojOek

There isn't tons you can do with a virus in a lab that leaves it completely unchanged. There is evidence that that very lab did GoF research, that alone is enough to say it's plausible that if the virus came from that lab it's different because of the research done to it in the lab.

That doesn't make it an evil biowepon but that does make it the product of GoF research.

---

You didn't answer the question.

(Also, pretty crazy you kinda just eliminated the entire field of virology)

---

---

hockeybub89 posted...

How can you be on the right side if no one has an answer yet?

Because when others say there is no evidence all you have to do to be on the right side when you take the opposite stance is have there be some evidence. And there is a good amount.

And it's so dishonest to act as if last year there were tons of people going "idk where it came from, but one possibility is an accidental lab leak". They were called idiots for insisting that it was a deliberately bioengineered weapon, or that the communist Democrats were involved, or some Bill Gates scheme to push his microchips.

There were lots of people like that, I know because I was one of them. Just because some people insist that other people are making claim X doesn't mean they actually are.

I was told for almost 10 pages of a topic by DarkRoast that what I was claiming was impossible, even to have them realize on page 10 that the claim they suggested I was making was never one I was making. They insisted that I was claiming the scientists where genetically manipulating the virus when I was quite clearly talking about the virus mutating in serial passaging the whole time.

People tend to say "everybody who disagrees with me is an X person who believes Y" and often both X and Y are wrong.

Plenty of people like me thought many months ago that the lab leak was plausible

---

Oh look, another topic where joe thinks hes an expert because he did 10 min of research.
---

littlebro07 posted...

Nobody is making either claim.

---

COVxy posted...

(Also, pretty crazy you kinda just eliminated the entire field of virology)

Look it's possible that they just stared at it in microscopes or did whatever random shit that didn't really change it, but based on the type of lab, and that they were fucking around with live bats, and the other evidence, such a claim doesn't seem likely.

You didn't answer the question.

Any And statement 2 part conditional is going to be as probable or less probable than a single 1 part conditional that contains 1 of the parts of the first conditional, so by definition yes A is equally or more likely than A and B.

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Oh look, another topic where joe thinks hes an expert because he did 10 min of research.

I've done a lot more research than that, all my claims still hold up, and I'd much rather be me than a lame contribute nothing hater like you.

---

Your research is what sources tell me what I want to find out and then using every big word you can, even though you dont know the meaning of them.

Youre not the scholar you think you are.
---

joe40001 posted...

Look it's possible that they just stared at it in microscopes or did whatever random shit

Again, you are striking an entire fucking field out of existence here. Reflect on that. Many many many researchers simply study how existing viruses work, try to understand the basic mechanisms that allow them to do what they do. That's a whole lot more than "looking at them in a microscope".

joe40001 posted...

Any And statement 2 part conditional is going to be as probable or less probable than a single 1 part conditional that contains 1 of the parts of the first conditional, so by definition yes A is equally or more likely than A and B.

Correct, so in the absence of evidence, you should lean which way?

---