corona? :(

Currently viewing this thread:

The theory of gravity is also a theory. The bat origin is by far the most likely explanation.
China is stonewalling merely to hide its unwillingness to do more early in the outbreak and THEY are peddling unlikely alternative theories like the "frozen food from elsewhere" theory to deflect attention from their own failings. It's quite possible there will be no definite evidence to prove any theory ever, so we'll have to trust our best theory, that Batman Pepe was cooked and eaten by a sadistic Chinese Pepe.
 
Sometimes there is not an answer to a question, no matter how much we want to have one. The best evidence that we have for the bat theory is circumstantial.


Sure, it looks compatible with a bat coronavirus. It could possibly also come from a pangolin. But we can't unequivocally say if it's one way or the other, or even if it's either. Which is not to say that it was created in a lab (for that there's about as much evidence as there is to prove that I personally assembled the virus together with really small tweezers in the summer of 2019 because I needed something fun to do). But we also can't say for sure that it came from a bat. I don't think that we will ever know exactly where it came from, although it's probably safe to say that it had a zoonotic origin of some kind.
 

dijiTurk

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
My prediction/theory also just a guess.. Even i dont see it as the most possible option. I only think about it sometimes..

Sometimes..sometimes, after i see news like this:

 
That title is clickbait, the article itself says there was a decrease in lymphoma, not complete absence. And it explains the effect with the immune reaction to Covid targeting lymphoma. There's nothing magical or new there - also see the last quote:
The effect, incidentally, has already been described in other infections in the context of high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
I'll translate that: other non-Covid infections may have the same effect on the immune system.

You need to ask yourself instead why do you need a conspiratorial mindset. Hint: it has something to do with general distrust of establishment, including experts and it makes you a prime sucker for conspiracy-tinged disinformation.
 

dijiTurk

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
Well. Being able to "trigger an anti-tumor immune response" seems like a key feature.:devilish:
Again, i dont know the source, or i dont give it clear meaning. I just evaluating the options, and sayin: this one may be reason/origin.. Thats all.

Also, i dont think i need to stick one uncertain reason. I can think and talk about my argument. Also, i dont think i need to stick experts, if there is 'other experts' which telling corona's source is from opposite side of world. I only strongly think that i need to find certain knowledge after all arguments synthesis.

My mindset aims to reach universal certain knowledge, carefully &freely, so all theories on the desk for me; including /may developed aganist cancer/ theory.
 
That just means you can't tell experts from "experts".
It's a problem for many people because it requires knowledge, experience and a lack of paranoid tendencies to decide on the credibility of a source. The most rabid conspiracy theorists are convinced that many experts (who are in fact "experts") are on their side, when the reality is quite different.
 

dijiTurk

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
If two scentists(experts) have two different arguments, and each say 'mine is reality' : Then you need to check both arguments to reach acually real one, right? If i say(non-expert) my argument, you should check it too with knew that im not an expert. Whats wrong if you know how to reach reality?

Telling my basic argument as just paranoic does not simply make you reach the reality. Let experts & public opinion bring their arguments together..then work on each arguments scientific & transparent? This makes you reach reality..

Of course, freedom of expression is important as transparency for each countries, but you can basicly intrested in only some arguments that you like & you can say: " 'some animals more equal than others' on the road of reality."

My argument was just an harmless idea about corona's origin, and i also tell its only an option & not reality. Also no option is certain atm. Countries/experts must reach reality together. Each options should be on desk, each should be checked scientificly & transparent for the world.
 
If two scentists(experts) have two different arguments, and each say 'mine is reality' : Then you need to check both arguments to reach acually real one, right? If i say(non-expert) my argument, you should check it too with knew that im not an expert. Whats wrong if you know how to reach reality?

Telling my basic argument as just paranoic does not simply make you reach the reality. Let experts & public opinion bring their arguments together..then work on each arguments scientific & transparent? This makes you reach reality..

Of course, freedom of expression is important as transparency for each countries, but you can basicly intrested in only some arguments that you like & you can say: " 'some animals more equal than others' on the road of reality."

My argument was just an harmless idea about corona's origin, and i also tell its only an option & not reality. Also no option is certain atm. Countries/experts must reach reality together. Each options should be on desk, each should be checked scientificly & transparent for the world.

When two experts have different opinions they settle it in peer reviewed papers. As I have shown earlier there are peer reviewed papers on whether covid came from bats or not, because that is a theory that has some merit. There is not a single actual expert in the field who would even consider that covid was created in a lab to fight cancer.

This is how you find out if someone is actually an expert in something:

1) Go to Scopus https://www.scopus.com/home.uri.

2) Click on "author search" and look them up by their name.

3) See how many peer reviewed papers they have and what their citation metrics are.

This is what the profile of an expert in virology should look like.



As you can see there is some variability in the sense that people can be experts and still some will be more academically successful than others (which does not necessarily mean that one is "better" than the other). However there is a bare minimum of proficiency that you have to show. If you don't have at least a h-index of 10 as a full professor in a high impact field like virology or any medical field really, well that's a red flag.

Chances are people who push conspiracy theories won't even show up on Scopus so it's usually pretty easy to tell.

Now of course one can be a non expert and still be right by sheer chance. But that's not how any of this works. When you hear an outlandish theory on virus that is being brought up by the local herbalist before one even considers it there needs to be strong evidence. "This one guy had covid and got a bit better from his cancer is not it". My grandpa had covid and after he recovered his backpain was better for a couple of weeks, doesn't mean that covid cures back pain.


If I sound overly passionate about this it's because I am. All of this is very, very important. We live in a day and age where science is being overthrown by sensationalism and social media mumbo jumbo. Science is what makes your car start when you leave your house in the morning, not reptilians or adorably tiny hamsters running in wheels.
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
Of all things that come to mind why the outbreak might possibly be intentional, curing cancer is probably the last xD
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
Excess mortality from Eurostat:

In total, over 450 000 more deaths occurred in the EU between March and November 2020 compared with the same period in 2016 – 2019
zARc_.gif
 
It's interesting how the averages used to calc excess mortality need to be redefined (lowered) because many old and sick people who would have died later in the year died in the second wave. So, there might be hidden excess mortality for some months going forward.
I think we can see a similar effect in much lower death rate for the same number of infections since January - many vulnerable people already died and the rest of the herd is somewhat stronger. Just my impression, I don't have hard evidence. Only herd evidence. I'll see myself out.
 

TimIZ

Regular
M&BWB
Excess mortality worldwide:

A few days ago a top rated physics (!) professor from Hamburg University published a so called "study" about the origin of the corona virus. He only used newspaper articles and youtube videos as sources, some of them very questionable like EpochTimes and Focus. I wouldn`t have dared to do this even as a "you missed one time too often so please write 5 pages" task. :shock:

Do you also experience that some of your scientists make total fools of themselves right now or is that a German speciality? :oops:
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
What are his sources? It says "Feb. 16". Typically there are some months delay in reporting.
There's no way he can have reliable death counts up until a few days ago.
(Physicists are typically not involved in epidemiology).
 
Do you also experience that some of your scientists make total fools of themselves right now or is that a German speciality? :oops:
Yes, and they are never ever from the relevant field of study. Scientists are not immune to conspiracy theories if they really, really want to believe them. Especially prone to this are naturally antagonistic personalities who take the opposing view to the established one every time they can.

They also get a ready audience of conspiracy believers, air time from less credible media, lectures and related money-making opportunities. What's not to like? In fact, why are we standing around and not doing this for the fame, the money and the middle-aged women??
 

TimIZ

Regular
M&BWB
What are his sources? It says "Feb. 16". Typically there are some months delay in reporting.
There's no way he can have reliable death counts up until a few days ago.
(Physicists are typically not involved in epidemiology).
https://github.com/akarlinsky/world_mortality

And the so called study about the origin of the virus:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349302406_Studie_zum_Ursprung_der_Coronavirus-Pandemie

I am a little bit confused btw. Is it clear that these are two different scientists with two different topics?

Yes, and they are never ever from the relevant field of study. Scientists are not immune to conspiracy theories if they really, really want to believe them. Especially prone to this are naturally antagonistic personalities who take the opposing view to the established one every time they can.

They also get a ready audience of conspiracy believers, air time from less credible media, lectures and related money-making opportunities. What's not to like? In fact, why are we standing around and not doing this for the fame, the money and the middle-aged women??
Sadly, there is also a retired microbiologist and epidemiologist in Germany who made Youtube videos with hundreds of thousands of views that were full of rubbish. And then we also have a retired medical officer and ex politician with even worse videos and more views.
 
Excess mortality worldwide:

A few days ago a top rated physics (!) professor from Hamburg University published a so called "study" about the origin of the corona virus. He only used newspaper articles and youtube videos as sources, some of them very questionable like EpochTimes and Focus. I wouldn`t have dared to do this even as a "you missed one time too often so please write 5 pages" task. :shock:

Do you also experience that some of your scientists make total fools of themselves right now or is that a German speciality? :oops:

I work in academia in robotics, and there's a *lot* of people who are trying to jump on the covid bandwagon trying to turn their research into something that is useful to deal with it. Partially out of honest desire to try to help with the emergency, but at least some people are just doing it in an attempt to make themselves look better. And it can get a little ridiculous when sometimes the arguments they come up with as to why their research can be useful for covid are forced.

With that said, this is so much worse in the sense that the man isn't even trying to do science in that paper. It's not just someone stepping out of their domain and making a fool of themselves, there's not a hint of science in this work. At least from what I can judge by the university page, which basically says as much.


Since the paper itself is in German (which I find extremely puzzling, if he wants to have an open discussion on this with everyone in the world wouldn't it make more sense to write it in English?).

I don't know, maybe a hint of insanity in a late career scientist who's past his prime?
 
I don't know, maybe a hint of insanity in a late career scientist who's past his prime?
From the article I've read he seized his moment in the spotlight early in the pandemic by making alarmist claims on Twitter (not crazy stuff, but not quite scientific, just like the one here). His Twitter followers exploded from a few bored people to many. I bet his new found social media fame was also monetized is some way.
Why do people who should know better trade their professional credibility for fame and followers? Maybe their academic career wasn't going anywhere anyway, so they said "**** it" and found themselves a new audience who uncritically accepts their every word.
 
From the article I've read he seized his moment in the spotlight early in the pandemic by making alarmist claims on Twitter (not crazy stuff, but not quite scientific, just like the one here). His Twitter followers exploded from a few bored people to many. I bet his new found social media fame was also monetized is some way.
Why do people who should know better trade their professional credibility for fame and followers? Maybe their academic career wasn't going anywhere anyway, so they said "**** it" and found themselves a new audience who uncritically accepts their every word.

That's the thing though, this guy was (and still is I guess) very much academically successful.


The ERC is one of the most difficult research grants to get in Europe, and he won it three times in a row. He pretty much is a rock star in his field. Which of course has nothing to do with virology, so he really isn't any more qualified than me or you to talk about that. I have no idea why someone like this would throw his reputation down the drain to chase after something like that.

Related:

 
Top Bottom