On the argument about is SARS-CoV2 lab-made or not, I note contributions from W, Zeus and RB. This is a review of the dialectic (is that the right use of the word)?
Terminology: pro-lab argument (W, RB), pro-nature argument (Z, THH)
- W claims (pro-lab) that the virus is lab-made, and engineered from HIV and some other viruses (presumably bat coronaviruses).
- Zeus has been presenting the pro-natue arguments, easy to find in the literature because 99% of scientists agree, and also on the face of it pretty obvious.
- I have been asking for the pro-lab arguments, in a proper written form, so I can look up precise rebuttals from experts, rather than summaries from internet illuminati with known unusual views.
- RB has been liking W's posts, and commenting on posts from Zeus or me presenting the pro-nature view. RB's comments are not exactly criticisms of our posts, because they are elliptical and whimsical. RB picks up a little bit of what we say (not the main argument) and elaborates on it in a pro-lab way.
In this, I can't understand W's inability to either post science to justify his claims, or admit they were wrong. I also can't understand the point of RB's interesting points (not any of them). Is he just having fun, laughing at us for arguing a case that is obvious (pro-nature) with somone who will not listen to those arguments? Is he definitely of a pro-lab mind, but too canny to make direct arguments - since he can't find any? Or does he just think the main pro-lab / pro-nature arguments are boring and is trying to enliven the thread with these interesting but totally elliptical comments? Is he, just possibly, strongly on one side of the pro-vax, anti-vax arguments? I know those are entirely separate from pro-lab / anti-lab but there seems to be some kinship between anti-vax and pro-lab - I guess both could be viewed as conspiracy theories. So maybe being of an anti-vax disposition makes support for pro-lab more likely?
For example, RB quotes Felix Bast linking wikipedia on DNA teleportation, liked by Montagnier, and one of several evidences of M's general battiness and then recent interesting work on conductivity along DNA. Now the fact that DNA molecules con be conductive is not entirely surprising. It is a million miles from the idea that such conductivity (or some other mechanism) might mediate radio transmission and exact reception during DNA replication with the information in the transmitted DNA code preserved. Which is so far out as to be well outside the solar system.
PS - if I've misrepresented any part of the dialog here my apologies, just say and I'll edit this post.
THH