Chat message

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

1. 2021-02-06 08:26 Kristian G. Andersen open
   No point in spending time explaining it's _not_ a lab escape - just keep reiterating the data supporting it's all natural evolution. Then combine that with three main things (1) lab escape proponents have not put forward a testable hypothesis, (2) the lab hypothesis comes down to a single 'fact' - this happen in Wuhan (that really is all there is toit), and (3) - and while I hate this part, it's effective - they're amateurs. It's not a nice look to be the person calling other scientists idiots, but they are - so I have no issue hammering on #3 these days.
2. 2021-02-06 08:29 Kristian G. Andersen open
   The only viable version of the "lab escape" hypothesis that's left, is the one we mention in PO1 - that somebody had the virus at the WIV and popped it into tissue culture. But as we say, that would look identical to natural emergence -no point for scientists trying to figure out if that could have happened, since it's not a scientific question - it lies with intelligence.
3. 2021-02-06 08:35 Andrew Rambaut open
   Exactly - that was my point 3.
4. 2021-02-06 08:36 Andrew Rambaut open
   But that is not the hypothesis they are proposing.
5. 2021-02-06 08:42 Andrew Rambaut
   But in the end you are never actually trying to convince these people, just make their arguments seem daft.
6. 2021-02-06 08:42 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Do they have an actual hypothesis?
7. 2021-02-06 08:43 Kristian G. Andersen open
   "just make their arguments seem daft" Excatly
8. 2021-02-06 08:43 Kristian G. Andersen open
   And when you break it down - all they have is the fact that this was detected in Wuhan. That's literally it.
9. 2021-02-06 08:44 Andrew Rambaut open
   Yes.

Full conversation →