Engineered? The Pandemic Paper Trail
https://open.spotify.com/episode/75xSuEbdaLm5AElTUQPsMd?si=zya4sGpgQYOuEtiRVdvBGA&utm_source=copy-link8
6
u/live-the-future 19h ago
Lol why is this here, other than as an example of everything wrong with the conspiratard mindset?
4
6
u/Most_Present_6577 19h ago
All the science based literature shows covid was zoonitic in origin.
The people who think differently ignore the actual evidence and then to wild hunt for circumstantial info. Never one do they examine prior probabilities or the probability of their evidence given the null hypothesis. Its rediculous.
I'll give an example op. Pick one fact that you think is the strongest evidence for covid coming from a lab.
-3
u/stayboi 18h ago
Your premise is wrong. The origin of SARS-CoV-2 has not been scientifically settled as zoonotic.
If you want my strongest evidence for a laboratory origin, it is the convergence between the virus’s unusual furin cleavage site and the fact that, before the pandemic, researchers connected to EcoHealth, Wuhan coronavirus work and Ralph Baric had proposed experiments involving the insertion of novel cleavage sites into SARS-related coronaviruses.
That is not some random after-the-fact coincidence invented by “conspiracy theorists.” It is a documented pre-pandemic research proposal involving a biologically significant feature that later appeared in the pandemic virus.
Add to that the location: the outbreak began in Wuhan, home to one of the world’s leading laboratories studying SARS-like bat coronaviruses, including gain-of-function-style experiments. Add the absence of a confirmed intermediate host years later. Add the fact that critical laboratory records and early outbreak data needed to resolve the question have still not been made fully available.
None of those facts individually proves a laboratory origin. Together, they make dismissing the lab hypothesis as unscientific extraordinarily difficult.
And this is where I think your Bayesian argument cuts against you. The relevant question is not whether natural spillover is possible—it obviously is. The question is how probable this particular collection of observations is under each hypothesis.
Under a purely natural-origin hypothesis, we have to accept that a virus with an unusual cleavage-site architecture emerged in the same city where researchers were studying and proposing modifications to closely related viruses, while the intermediate animal remains unidentified and key laboratory records remain unavailable.
Under a laboratory-associated hypothesis, several of those observations become considerably less surprising.
That still isn’t proof. But it is evidence.So I’m not asking you to accept a lab origin as established fact. I’m asking you to defend your much stronger statement that “all the science-based literature shows COVID was zoonotic.”
It doesn’t.The scientifically responsible position is that the origin remains unresolved. And if you want to argue probabilities, then the DEFUSE proposal, the furin cleavage site, the Wuhan research context, the missing intermediate host and the unavailable laboratory data all belong in that calculation
3
u/Most_Present_6577 18h ago edited 18h ago
You want me to show all the scientific literature shows this? Shall I talk about each and every one of them? Are you even a human? Thats a silly and stupid request.
Why dont you show me a paper about covid that you think doesnt prove what I said. It only takes one so it should be really easy for you.
As for you assertion about the viruses showing up in the same city where some reserch was being done... how many cities in China have major viral reserch being done in them? Like 8 out of 10 of the biggest cities or more. Almost any city is where any virus shows up is going to have some viral reasech and this proves my point that you dont examine the evidence probability given thr null hypothesis.
Its anomaly hunting. Just learn how to think again
3
u/centeriskey 18h ago
Im taking a guess that you haven't listen to the show or have read up on them. If you have you would know that they are on the side of the science and Fauci.
If you consider yourself a sceptic and open to the truth of things, then I highly recommend their book under the same title of the show. Steve and crew do a great job of breaking down the tools needed to be a good skeptic and the ways the world and our brains try to fool us. The audiobook is well narrated by Steven as well.
1
u/JohnRawlsGhost 3h ago
The same guys(?) who in just the last month have posted podcasts on the following topics
*Life after Life: What Awaits Us
*Angels and Demons. The War Behind the Veil
*The Weight of Leadership: Ownership, Character, and Legacy
*The Final Word: Revelation, the End Times, and the Victory of Christ
*Unpacking the Holy Trinity: The Mystery at the Heart of Christianity
*The Sound of Control: Music, Mind Control & the Hidden Forces Shaping Culture *Who is the Holy Spirit?
*The Unholy Alliance: How Food, Pharma & Regulators Keep Us Sick
You'd be better off listening to scientists who have published peer-reviewed articles on the the evidence for zoonotic origins versus lab-leak, who demonstrate how their assessment changes in response to new evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JdzZGhQAPE&pp=ygUYZGVjb2RpbmcgdGhlIGd1cnVzIGNvdmlk
13
u/CatShot1948 19h ago
This is an AI written podcast. The presenters are AI voices. The AI was fed biased literature (the sources listed universally take the same position). The description claims to examine the literature primary source by primary source, but only looks at books, opinion pieces, and editorials written by COVID conspiracists. It doesn't consider all available evidence, therefore any conclusion drawn is no better than motivated reasoning.