Forum
»
Covid Scientists admit lab leak cover-up was political: feared Sh*tshow from China
Covid Scientists admit lab leak cover-up was political: feared Sh*tshow from China
07-19-2023, 07:12 PM
-
#181
07-19-2023, 07:17 PM
-
#182
07-19-2023, 07:19 PM
-
#183
07-19-2023, 07:23 PM
-
#184
07-19-2023, 07:28 PM
-
#185
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
I'm saying stating (prior) beliefs and assumptions, explicitly, is advantageous for science.Your first post said Bayesian Inference, which you switched to Bayesian Epistemology.
Are you saying you consider those two terms to be the same?
Are you saying you consider those two terms to be the same?
You can turn that into whatever you want. But it's my position.
07-19-2023, 07:31 PM
-
#186
07-19-2023, 07:32 PM
-
#187
07-19-2023, 07:41 PM
-
#188
07-19-2023, 07:43 PM
-
#189
07-19-2023, 07:44 PM
-
#190
07-19-2023, 08:44 PM
-
#191
Originally Posted By TheMossad⏩
Reminds me of a different joke...Reminds me of an old joke. What's the difference between a mathematician and a philosopher? A mathematician uses an eraser. Ayyyy!
The "mathematician" who thought epistemology was "stats".
Originally Posted By TheMossad⏩
I mean, at least it's on par with the whole "sensors that detect anything resembling flesh" comment.lmao shows what that cuck even knows about Stats lmao
07-19-2023, 08:45 PM
-
#192
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
1. Prior beliefs and assumptions can be advantageous for science, or2. Covid is a novel virus that no one knew anything about.
You've now claimed both of these points, and you have to pick one.
Which one do you pick?
07-19-2023, 07:47 PM
-
#193
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
This is in bad faith and low iq af. It was a novel virus. We also knew a lot about it because we had studied SARS. Remember why they picked the Spike protein to design the vaccines around? You're so horribly slow. But what would you expect from a PhD in psychology? Not even a real field. What an incompetent loser lmao.1. Prior beliefs and assumptions can be advantageous for science, or
2. Covid is a novel virus that no one knew anything about.
You've now claimed both of these points, and you have to pick one.
Which one do you pick?
2. Covid is a novel virus that no one knew anything about.
You've now claimed both of these points, and you have to pick one.
Which one do you pick?
You post even more than me lmao. You have no life whatsoever. Just kill yourself bro.
07-19-2023, 08:50 PM
-
#194
Originally Posted By TheMossad⏩
So you are saying, when people claimed that the reason the response to the virus was so misplaced because they didn't know anything about, was a lie?This is in bad faith and low iq af. It was a novel virus.We also knew a lot about it because we had studied SARS.Remember why they picked the Spike protein to design the vaccines around? You're so horribly slow. But what would you expect from a PhD in psychology? Not even a real field. What an incompetent loser lmao.
You post even more than me lmao. You have no life whatsoever. Just kill yourself bro.
You post even more than me lmao. You have no life whatsoever. Just kill yourself bro.
You walked right into that one, didn't you.
07-19-2023, 07:52 PM
-
#195
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
You wanna rephrase that one champ?So you are saying, when people claimed that the reason the response to the virus was so misplaced because they didn't know anything about, was a lie?
You walked right into that one, didn't you.
You walked right into that one, didn't you.
07-19-2023, 08:55 PM
-
#196
Originally Posted By TheMossad⏩
Left a mistake in there for you to catch - to prove you've got nothing else except to nitpick grammar.You wanna rephrase that one champ?
And yes, you walked into that one as well, didn't you?
Dance puppet, dance.
07-19-2023, 08:19 PM
-
#197
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
Riiiiiiight. Well gl with that.Left a mistake in there for you to catch - to prove you've got nothing else except to nitpick grammar.
And yes, you walked into that one as well, didn't you?
Dance puppet, dance.
And yes, you walked into that one as well, didn't you?
Dance puppet, dance.
07-19-2023, 09:40 PM
-
#198
07-19-2023, 11:53 PM
-
#199
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
-
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
- Join Date: Mar 2020
- Posts: 17,326
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
This is a little O/T, but I like it when you say the Bayesian revolution is upon us. Bayesian Brain theories are all the rage in contemporary cognitive science and philosophy of mind. I've written some stuff on it. I'm more like "Hold up, nukka. The tenets of Bayesian Brain are a bit presumptuous."Back off, Warchild.
Seriously.
07-20-2023, 03:37 AM
-
#200
- Cleveland33
- Registered Gooner
-
- Cleveland33
- Registered Gooner
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Posts: 66,951
- Rep Power: 497612
-
-
Originally Posted By Bodhy⏩
no you haven'tThis is a little O/T, but I like it when you say the Bayesian revolution is upon us. Bayesian Brain theories are all the rage in contemporary cognitive science and philosophy of mind. I've written some stuff on it. I'm more like "Hold up, nukka. The tenets of Bayesian Brain are a bit presumptuous."
07-20-2023, 06:01 AM
-
#201
Originally Posted By Bodhy⏩
Bayes rule > p-valuesThis is a little O/T, but I like it when you say the Bayesian revolution is upon us. Bayesian Brain theories are all the rage in contemporary cognitive science and philosophy of mind. I've written some stuff on it. I'm more like "Hold up, nukka. The tenets of Bayesian Brain are a bit presumptuous."
07-20-2023, 07:00 AM
-
#202
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
-
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
- Join Date: Mar 2020
- Posts: 17,326
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Yeah, I don't mind that, I do object to the way Bayesian Brain theorists make some conceptually awkward claims about cognition and mind though.Bayes rule > p-values
I like Bayes Theorem because it destroys that stupid slogan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Back off, Warchild.
Seriously.
07-20-2023, 08:49 AM
-
#203
Originally Posted By Bodhy⏩
So can you confirm that wincel is correct in claiming that epistemology is "stats"?Yeah, I don't mind that, I do object to the way Bayesian Brain theorists make some conceptually awkward claims about cognition and mind though.
I like Bayes Theorem because it destroys that stupid slogan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
I like Bayes Theorem because it destroys that stupid slogan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
07-20-2023, 11:54 AM
-
#204
07-28-2023, 06:29 AM
-
#205
- gwg77
- Join Date: Oct 2017
- Location: United States
- Posts: 20,566
- Subscribers: 20
- Rep Power: 1102742
-
-
They are calling for the retraction of Kristian Andersen's Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 paper
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ts-demand.html
Dozens of scientists have today demanded the retraction of an influential paper credited with dismissing the idea that Covid emerged from a lab.
Authors of 'Proximal Origin', published days before Britain was thrust into its first lockdown, wrote: 'We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.'
But a coalition of experts have now demanded it is removed, calling it 'misleading' and 'damaging'.
The plea comes after secret messages between the authors — which casted doubt on their own beliefs — were unearthed.
One of the researchers behind the paper in Nature Medicine, Dr Kristian Andersen, a Danish evolutionary biologist, actually believed a lab escape was 'highly likely'.
Yet they publicly supported the natural origin theory for 'political' reasons, leaked messages revealed.
Authors of the piece also feared pinning the blame on the Chinese lab would cause a 's***show' and threaten future funding of virus manipulation research.
Proximal Origins was touted by the likes of Dr Anthony Fauci in the opening months of the global pandemic amid fierce debate over its origin.
At the time, many virologists assumed that the virus emerged naturally from a spillover from animals to humans at a wet market in the centre of Wuhan.
Although many leading experts still believe this was the cause, consensus over how the pandemic began three years ago has slowly started to shift.
Evidence the virus may have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is inconclusive, leaving experts fearing the truth behind Covid's origins will never be uncovered.
In a letter sent to Nature Medicine yesterday 34 scientists called for the paper's retraction.
Signatories include Dr Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey and long-time critic of dangerous lab research on pathogens.
The coalition stated: 'The paper played an influential role — indeed, the central role — in communicating the false narrative that science established that SARS-CoV-2 entered humans through natural spillover, and not through research-related spillover.'
The signatories then cited recent US Congressional hearings showing authors of the paper itself did not believe the core conclusion of the paper.
'The authors' statements show that the paper was, and is, a product of scientific misconduct,' the letter read.
They added: 'It is imperative that this misleading and damaging product of scientific misconduct be removed from the scientific literature.'
Slack messages obtained by MailOnline show Dr Andersen, a Danish evolutionary biologist, told colleagues the idea of a lab leak was 'not some fringe theory' and was, in fact, 'highly likely' the genesis of the pandemic.
Separate, publicly-available communications between the virologist and his co-authors show how the group backed the natural origin theory for 'political' reasons and feared pinning the blame on the Chinese lab would cause a 's***show' and threaten future funding of virus manipulation research.
Critics have claimed the messages as proof the authors worked to censor debate about the origins of the pandemic.
But the scientists involved have said they changed their minds between sending the messages and writing the paper.
Dr Andersen and the other scientists involved in publishing 'The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2' paper on March 17, 2020, were asked to testify before the US House Oversight Select Subcommittee earlier this month.
But only Dr Andersen and co-author Dr Robert Garry, a respected microbiologist who works at Tulane University in New Orleans, actually did.
House Republicans grilled the two doctors, citing the newly disclosed communications between researchers in early 2020 as evidence of a cover-up - something the scientists strongly refuted.
Some of the messages were published as part of a Government report released early before the hearing.
Read more:Authors of 'Proximal Origin', published days before Britain was thrust into its first lockdown, wrote: 'We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.'
But a coalition of experts have now demanded it is removed, calling it 'misleading' and 'damaging'.
The plea comes after secret messages between the authors — which casted doubt on their own beliefs — were unearthed.
One of the researchers behind the paper in Nature Medicine, Dr Kristian Andersen, a Danish evolutionary biologist, actually believed a lab escape was 'highly likely'.
Yet they publicly supported the natural origin theory for 'political' reasons, leaked messages revealed.
Authors of the piece also feared pinning the blame on the Chinese lab would cause a 's***show' and threaten future funding of virus manipulation research.
Proximal Origins was touted by the likes of Dr Anthony Fauci in the opening months of the global pandemic amid fierce debate over its origin.
At the time, many virologists assumed that the virus emerged naturally from a spillover from animals to humans at a wet market in the centre of Wuhan.
Although many leading experts still believe this was the cause, consensus over how the pandemic began three years ago has slowly started to shift.
Evidence the virus may have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is inconclusive, leaving experts fearing the truth behind Covid's origins will never be uncovered.
In a letter sent to Nature Medicine yesterday 34 scientists called for the paper's retraction.
Signatories include Dr Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey and long-time critic of dangerous lab research on pathogens.
The coalition stated: 'The paper played an influential role — indeed, the central role — in communicating the false narrative that science established that SARS-CoV-2 entered humans through natural spillover, and not through research-related spillover.'
The signatories then cited recent US Congressional hearings showing authors of the paper itself did not believe the core conclusion of the paper.
'The authors' statements show that the paper was, and is, a product of scientific misconduct,' the letter read.
They added: 'It is imperative that this misleading and damaging product of scientific misconduct be removed from the scientific literature.'
Slack messages obtained by MailOnline show Dr Andersen, a Danish evolutionary biologist, told colleagues the idea of a lab leak was 'not some fringe theory' and was, in fact, 'highly likely' the genesis of the pandemic.
Separate, publicly-available communications between the virologist and his co-authors show how the group backed the natural origin theory for 'political' reasons and feared pinning the blame on the Chinese lab would cause a 's***show' and threaten future funding of virus manipulation research.
Critics have claimed the messages as proof the authors worked to censor debate about the origins of the pandemic.
But the scientists involved have said they changed their minds between sending the messages and writing the paper.
Dr Andersen and the other scientists involved in publishing 'The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2' paper on March 17, 2020, were asked to testify before the US House Oversight Select Subcommittee earlier this month.
But only Dr Andersen and co-author Dr Robert Garry, a respected microbiologist who works at Tulane University in New Orleans, actually did.
House Republicans grilled the two doctors, citing the newly disclosed communications between researchers in early 2020 as evidence of a cover-up - something the scientists strongly refuted.
Some of the messages were published as part of a Government report released early before the hearing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ts-demand.html
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts