Current Events > Will hivemind liberals at least admit they were wrong about this?

(+) Yeah! (+)

joe why are you like this

---

DarkRoast posted...

the dualuse gainoffunction research practice of viral serial passage should be considered a viable route by which the novel coronavirus arose

That doesn't mean what you think it means

I think this whole time you've had a mistaken view of what you think I think I mean.

Take it and me at face value and stop trying to insist I mean something I don't.

How is that a bad argument for how gain of function research might have meaningfully altered the virus we now know as SARSCoV2?

---

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about

---

DarkRoast posted...

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about

This is not an argument. It's not even close.

Say what about what I said was wrong. You simply can't in good faith insist somebody is wrong without saying a single specific thing I'm wrong about.

Gain of function research can meaningfully alter a virus through techniques such as serial passaging.

True or False?

---

joe40001 posted...

This is not an argument. It's not even close.

Say what about what I said was wrong. You simply can't in good faith insist somebody is wrong without saying a single specific thing I'm wrong about.

Gain of function research can meaningfully alter a virus through techniques such as serial passaging.

True or False?

Look, it's not my job to explain molecular biology to you. It's your job to recognize you don't have the knowledge.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Look, it's not my job to explain molecular biology to you. It's your job to recognize you don't have the knowledge.

XD

This is getting pathetic.

"It's not my job" is literally a meme of a deflection response.

It's a true or false question and it's honestly "too hard" for you to answer?

Nobody is buying that horseshit. You just know that the answer is true, and you are too afraid to say it because it invalidates the last 80 posts you've spent bashing on me.

Gain of function research can meaningfully alter a virus through techniques such as serial passaging.

True or False?

---

Conflict posted...

Coffeebeanz I really have no idea why you're still entertaining this

This dumb topic also would've been purged if Joel in his infinite wisdom didn't decide to bump it

Because eventually you get him to throw a tantrum and get himself warned

see: posts 424 and 426

---

Conflict posted...

DezDroppedFreak posted...

It's sad that there are people who are openly proud of refusing to engage an argument on it's merits.

You can't even have the pretense of being right if you openly flaunt how you don't engage in discussion as anything but hostile sport.

---

Gain of function research can meaningfully alter a virus through techniques such as serial passaging.

True or False?

---

Again this is running with the assumption you are worth engaging with seriously

You are not, and Im amazed darkroast entertained your nonsense for as long as she did

Its also running with the assumption people havent addressed your points

They have

You just for whatever reason refuse to or cannot comprehend

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Again this is running with the assumption you are worth engaging with seriously

You are not, and Im amazed darkroast entertained your nonsense for as long as she did

Its also running with the assumption people havent addressed your points

They have

You just for whatever reason refuse to or cannot comprehend

They have not.

Not a single claim of mine has been explicitly challenged. Look back you will not find a single person saying "this claim is wrong".

Look at how hard DR is avoiding a simple T/F question. That is not a person engaging at all.

I have provided sources, and the people arguing with me have done nothing but dismiss and ad hominin.

Seriously point to a single post in this 10 post topic that disagrees with me and says anything concrete/specific. I'll wait...

If a person refuses to answer a simple T/F question and similarly has dodge any question on specifics throughout the whole topic, they are not debating. They are obviously just avoiding.

---

ONE single concrete question, any "expert" should be able to answer:
Gain of function research can meaningfully alter a virus through techniques such as serial passaging.

True or False?

---

This topic was brought to you by these informal fallacies:




---

DarkRoast posted...

This topic was brought to you by these informal fallacies:

It's a true or false question. That literally doesn't apply.

When you had T/F questions in your college did you yell at the teacher?

Gain of function research can meaningfully alter a virus through techniques such as serial passaging.

True or False?

---

False in the way you're implying

---

DarkRoast posted...

False in the way you're implying

1. Thank you for finally saying something concrete. I am honestly appreciative.
2. You don't get to tell me what I mean.

I'm not implying anything more. I'm saying the virus is altered in a meaningful way. Full stop.

So you believe that is false, despite it being the definition of the process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_passage
Serial passage refers to the process of growing bacteria or a virus in iterations. For instance, a virus may be grown in one environment, and then a portion of that virus population can be removed and put into a new environment. This process is repeated with as many stages as desired, and then the final product is studied, often in comparison with the original virus.

If that's truly your belief, I think you are obviously wrong. But if that's truly your belief, I won't disagree with you further because there would be no point because we disagree on such a fundamental premise.

What it very much seems like it's coming down to is this though, "Yes, that statement is True, but I'm not going to acknowledge it's True, because you said it, Joe. If I saw that question on a test I would select True, but because I attribute ignorance and bad motives to you Joe, when responding to you I will say the answer is False"

---

This topic is bad and you should feel back for making it.

---

ooger posted...

This topic is bad and you should feel back for making it.

I provided a detailed argument, cited sources, and textbook definitions acknowledged by the government, CDC, WHO, etc.

The only reason this topic is bad is because it was cluttered by people like you who don't engage on the merits and say nothing.

Even DR at least somewhat tries to engage, even if it's done with a pretense of hostility and dismissal. I honestly think DR would have come around to acknowledging my position if they didn't start from this place of assuming I believed something I never believed and then just always trying to filter everything I said through that lens.

But regardless, I'd take that over somebody like you who just sits on the sidelines and contributes nothing.

---

What you think you're asking: "Could this lab be responsible for gain of function mutations via gene modification?"

That answer is "No"

What you're actually asking: "Can viruses gain function at any time via the normal process of viral replication?"

That answer is "Yes"

You're basically asking if viruses are capable of evolution. Answering your question has no bearing on this lab whatsoever.


---

DarkRoast posted...

What you think you're asking: "Could this lab be responsible for gain of function mutations via gene modification?"

That answer is "No"

What you're actually asking: "Can viruses gain function at any time via the normal process of viral replication?"

That answer is "Yes"

Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I'm so glad you did this, this will save a lot of time.
To be clear: "I am not, and have never been asserting the first one."

I am saying the second one. Which you agree with.

Serial passaging uses the normal process of viral replication yes, but it is done in specific lab circumstances to alter the virus in meaningful ways such as to increases pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range.

Now that you understand that this is my claim, can you acknowledge that these can be meaningful alterations to the virus?

---

circumstances to alter the virus in meaningful ways such as to increases pathogenesis,

No.

---

joe40001 posted...

I provided a detailed argument, cited sources, and textbook definitions acknowledged by the government, CDC, WHO, etc.

The only reason this topic is bad is because it was cluttered by people like you who don't engage on the merits and say nothing.

Even DR at least somewhat tries to engage, even if it's done with a pretense of hostility and dismissal. I honestly think DR would have come around to acknowledging my position if they didn't start from this place of assuming I believed something I never believed and then just always trying to filter everything I said through that lens.

But regardless, I'd take that over somebody like you who just sits on the sidelines and contributes nothing.

This topic is a nothingburger.

Let's get it to 500 so it closes.

---

Quick!

Everyone post your favorite numbers.

LAST POST WINS!!!!!!!

---

10

---

DarkRoast posted...

circumstances to alter the virus in meaningful ways such as to increases pathogenesis,

No.

I mean that's from the wikipedia definition of gain of function research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_of_function_research

Gain of function research (GoFR) is a term used to describe any field of medical research which alters an organism or disease in a way that increases pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range (the types of hosts that a microorganism can infect).[citation needed] This research is intended to reveal targets to better predict emerging infectious diseases and to develop vaccines and therapeutics.

Perhaps the pathogenisis part would not apply to viruses. And if so that is a good note for me to know. But what about transmissibility, or host range. Couldn't those be altered through serial passaging?

A virus mutates as it reproduces, so by forcing it's reproduction under specialized circumstances through serial passaging aren't you meaningfully altering it's transmissibility and host range? As in the case of the wikipedia example:

For example, influenza B can only infect humans and harbor seals.[1] Introducing a mutation that would allow influenza B to infect rabbits in a controlled laboratory situation would be considered a "gain of function" experiment as the virus did not previously have that function. However, such an experiment could help reveal which parts of the virus are responsible for its host range, enabling the creation of antiviral medicines which block this function.[2]

EDIT:
Here is another source for the definition:
Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/

---

Joe, we're done here.

BTW the best number is undoubtedly -i

---

DarkRoast posted...

Joe, we're done here.

Look, it's ok you formerly misunderstood my argument. But stopping now is silly. You and I are finally in agreement.

"A virus mutates as it reproduces, so by forcing it's reproduction under specialized circumstances through serial passaging you can be meaningfully altering it's transmissibility and/or virulence."

This is something we agree on, and since it is the crux of my argument if we both just acknowledge it to be true then we can mark this as a settled albeit formerly contentious disagreement.

---

My favorite number is Ralph.

---

(My updated claims list)
My Claims:

Claim 1: Facebook previously banned the the discussion of the idea that COVID might have originated in a Chinese lab

Evidence:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-man-made-491053
https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/covid-19-misinfo-update/#removing-more-false-claims

Claim 2: This facebook banning of the lab leak hypothesis was part of a larger cultural trend of liberal/mainstream people completely dismissing it as a possibility

Evidence:
https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/4/21156607/how-did-the-coronavirus-get-started-china-wuhan-lab
<img src="">">

Claim 3: The cultural/political narrative on a subject influences how much research on it is able to be done
Evidence: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/09/09/345289127/when-scientists-give-up
Glomski's problem was that he could only get funding to do very predictable, unexciting research. When money gets tight, often only the most risk-averse ideas get funded, he and others say.

"You're focusing basically on one idea you already have and making it as presentable as possible," he says. "You're not spending time making new ideas. And it's making new ideas, for me personally, that I found rewarding. That's what my passion was about."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMNdjYn2_PA

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03067-w
"Politics is deeply ingrained in scientists working life. Be it through funding agendas, cultural lobbies or personal bias, politics can shape the game in myriad ways, influencing the direction and quality of research."

Claim 4: The Wuhan institute of virology conducts gain of function research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#cite_note-nature_medicine_201511-11
"Researchers from the WIV have also collaborated in gain of function research on coronaviruses with American colleagues."
Relevant wiki citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/

Claim 5: Gain of function research can alter a virus in meaningful ways
Evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_of_function_research
"Gain of function research (GoFR) is a term used to describe any field of medical research which alters an organism or disease in a way that increases pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range (the types of hosts that a microorganism can infect)."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/
"Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens."

Me: Gain of function research can meaningfully alter a virus through techniques such as serial passaging.
True or False?

DarkRoast: (Undergrad: Microbiology, Master's: Public Health, Doctoral: Medicine)
What you're actually asking: "Can viruses gain function at any time via the normal process of viral replication?"

That answer is "Yes"

Claim 6: The Wuhan Institute of Virology is at least a somewhat likely origin for COV19
Evidence:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/05/covid-lab-leak-hypothesis-just-got-a-big-credibility-boost.html

https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748

---

Speculative claim 1: Because of claim 2 and 3, it is reasonable to think it's possible additional important research into the lab leak hypothesis was not done due to the cultural climate around it.

Speculative claim 2: Additional research into the lab leak hypothesis could have provided knowledge that COVID19 started in a lab and knowledge of how it started/spread

Speculative claim 3: Knowledge that COVID19 started in a lab and knowledge of how it started/spread could have helped shaped our global response to it in positive and potentially life saving ways.

---

Counter-claims (please correct these claims if they are not what is being claimed)

Counter claim: None of this is right because Joe is an anti-vax qanon republican:
My counter-evidence: 1. I am fully vaccinated, I voted for Biden and never voted for Trump, I am frequently critical of conservatives. 2. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies.

Counter claim: No actual responsible discussion was ever removed from facebook
My counter-evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8j7BD0ZNFg (click to expand)

New York magazines latest cover story, The Lab-Leak Hypothesis, concludes that COVID-19 is a human-engineered virus that escaped from a Wuhan lab the very same theory that moved Facebook to suppress a Post opinion piece for weeks last year.
Steven W. Mosher only called it a possibility in these pages on Feb. 23, 2020. But Facebook quickly moved to suppress the column as False Information and wouldnt unblock it until April 17.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/05/facebooks-covid-coverup/

Counter claim: lol, STFU, why aren't you just banned already, etc
My counter-evidence: no u

---

Please let me know if anybody believes any of my claims to be false, and if so which ones and why. I will update my counter claim list accordingly.

---

you typed all that and they're just gonna argue with the part that says joe4000

---

lol

---

For what it's worth, I have TC tagged as "Wrote a tl;dnr on Aunt Jemima," so....

---

AlphaCuck posted...

you typed all that and they're just gonna argue with the part that says joe4000

I don't do it for the people who can't be reached. I do it for the people who can, and how they can see the others who can't through a new light.

I think going forward DarkRoast is going to respond to the lab leak hypothesis with less vitriol, even if they don't currently acknowledge it.

They will resent the comparison, but it's like this guy reality testing his mom's Qanon theories:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz-IEB0tFt8

They make a bet and she is so damn sure she is right, but when time passes and none of the things come true. Next time she won't take the bet.

It's like that with anybody who follows the orthodoxy of their political party. They are SO SURE that they are right, and even though the liberal orthodoxy is correct more often than the conservative orthodoxy and TONS more than something like Qanon, that doesn't mean it's not the same flawed thinking: Coming to conclusions based on affiliation rather than critical thinking.

Things like lab leak being possible or ivermectin being helpful, some people are SO SURE that it's impossible and crackpot. And that's often because they make erroneous assumptions. DarkRoast made a false assumption about what I meant for literally half this topic before saying that assumption out loud so that I could tell them no.

Anybody who literally thinks all the good people are on their side and everybody against their side on anything is evil is being dumb. The world is far too complex to have everything settled by your political parties orthodoxy, and that is proven by things like the change in the liberal response to lab leak.

The fight to win people over to the side of critical thinking is hard, and I'm going to make mistakes and be wrong. Which is why I try really hard to make specific claims or include my uncertainty with my claims. But it's still a fight worth having. Because the more people you get the more productive and healthy society is.

---

Are y'all proud that you've spent an entire topic egging this on?
---

No

---

496

---

joe40001 posted...

Please let me know if anybody believes any of my claims to be false, and if so which ones and why. I will update my counter claim list accordingly.

You: [Endless wall of bullshit]. "Prove me wrong"

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
---

DarkRoast posted...

You: [Endless wall of bullshit]. "Prove me wrong"

lol

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

That is not accurate because I have not moved the goalposts at all. I have been quite consistent in my statements. I have not "Often, sealioning involved asking for evidence for even basic claims." as my claims have been specific and have sources such as the government, peer reviewed papers, and textbook definitions themselves.

I think you are mistaking my stubborn unwillingness to accept ad hominims as arguments as sealioning. Because if I was indeed sealioning you'd be able to point to a single claim I made that was obviously false, or questions that I asked that got concrete answers.

---

Will we get another topic after this?

---

I hope so

---

DarkRoast posted...

You: [Endless wall of bullshit]. "Prove me wrong"

It's called evidence. And if you are intimidated by the scope of it you can point to any single claim and simply dispute it.

You can't be simultaneously critical of me for being under informed and also dismiss countless sources across many topics. Many you agree are valid.

---