The Wuhan lab leak conspiracy theory now a likely reality

[ExFlyer]

55 minutes ago, myata said:

No: there's some to solid circumstantial evidence favoring one hypothesis without much for the alternative one. This is the objective state of the matter as we speak.

......

So: beyond reasonable doubt? Maybe not. Balance of likelihoods: I don't see how and why not.

T..... If we ever get the final answer shouldn't that count too?

Look, I am truly hoping that you understand what a"hypothesis" is?

While it may be educated, it is still just a guess, a theory that needs to be proven.I s it "beyond reasonable doubt"? No but, it is still unproven so, it is not fact.

Absolutely, if we get a final answer it will count but, until the "hypothesis " is proven, it is still just a theory.

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Holy shit kid    looks like i broke your brain good this time LOLOL!!!!!  Well i guess the usual melt down was to be expected, and i'm sure you'll hissy fit for a bit as you always do when you realize you once again look dumb.  I'll go put some popcorn on  🍿🍿🍿

Nope, Just have come to the realization that you are a F'n loser and full of BS.

Not a single post of yours is of any value except to fulfill your need to insult and demean.

Do you have to call upstairs to Mommy to make you the popcorn? LOL

[Venandi]

40 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

if we get a final answer it will count but, until the "hypothesis " is proven, it is still just a theory.

I would accept that as a given, but it's not my heartache with the whole thing.

There was a lab a few blocks from the hack point, it was doing GOF research on the self same virus, in the fall of 2019 two lab workers were hospitalized with Covid symptoms (that became open source in early 2020), but anyone making that connection... saying "wait a minute now" was punished.

Leading Phd's were de-platformed, people fired, careers ruined, information deliberately suppressed, ridicule abounded etc etc, all for merely suggesting a causal connection. 

Now it's simply a working hypothesis, we patiently await a conclusive determination, and the issue of suppression and punishment gets a nonchalant shrug as if it never happened.

My fear is that we learned nothing and all that personal and professional pain was for naught... if so, we'll do this again at the very first opportunity.

 

[myata]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I am truly hoping that you understand what a"hypothesis" is?

No, you don't seem to grasp it.

Britannica Dictionary definition of HYPOTHESIS. [count] : an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion.

A hypothesis has to be formulated correctly; it has to be based on some valid supporting arguments. And it has to be verifiable at least in principle.

A wild guess, like "the aliens created Covid to populate Earth" will not be considered a valid hypothesis by any serious scientist because it cannot satisfy these conditions. In other words, a hypothesis has to describe some possible reality based on all the knowledge available to date and without contradiction to it. Artificial and natural origins of Covid are both valid hypothesis at this time. They have different supporting arguments and there's nothing wrong with evaluating their likelihood based on the arguments that support them. If you have no clue about the subject try to learn more rather than strutting your ignorance.

[ExFlyer]

34 minutes ago, myata said:

No, you don't seem to grasp it.

Britannica Dictionary definition of HYPOTHESIS. [count] : an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion.

A hypothesis has to be formulated correctly; it has to be based on some valid supporting arguments. And it has to be verifiable at least in principle.

A wild guess, like "the aliens created Covid to populate Earth" will not be considered a valid hypothesis by any serious scientist because it cannot satisfy these conditions. In other words, a hypothesis has to describe some possible reality based on all the knowledge available to date and without contradiction to it. Artificial and natural origins of Covid are both valid hypothesis at this time. They have different supporting arguments and there's nothing wrong with evaluating their likelihood based on the arguments that support them. If you have no clue about the subject try to learn more rather than strutting your ignorance.

I get it exactly.

The key part of the definition is "an idea or theory that is not proven "

My point has been, form the beginning, provide some proof. I did say it was an educated guess, bit not proven

I have more than a clue. I just, as I said, wait for the proof. I am not arguing or demeaning or calling you names, I am just saying that conjecture is not final.

Remember that Canada has some culpability in this stuff

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/winnipeg-lab-firing-documents-released-china-1.7128865

Edited June 8 by ExFlyer

[myata]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Leading Phd's were de-platformed, people fired, careers ruined, information deliberately suppressed, ridicule abounded etc etc, all for merely suggesting a causal connection. 

Actually I think these cases should now be brought forward and published. Better still by an independent citizens inquiry, as self-serving political agents cannot be trusted. If only for the record. If we couldn't get it right, maybe someone somewhere could, based on this experience.

[myata]

13 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

My point has been, form the beginning, provide some proof.

You seem to be confusing "the supporting arguments" with "the proof". They are not the same. Yes, there's no final proof for any of the hypotheses at this time. It doesn't mean that they have no arguments, nor that the arguments have to carry equal weight.

Think of it, this happens all the time in the civil courts: there may not be definitive evidence either way; one has to decide the likelihood of either hypothesis on the balance of the arguments that were presented. It doesn't mean that they are equal or have to be. One of the hypotheses can be judged as more likely, as of this time and based on presented arguments. It's not the final truth, but until a) such definitive evidence emerges or b) new and essentially different meaningful arguments put forward, it would be the best conclusion one could have.

Edited June 8 by myata

[ExFlyer]

15 minutes ago, myata said:

You seem to be confusing "the supporting arguments" with "the proof". They are not the same. Yes, there's no final proof for any of the hypotheses at this time. It doesn't mean that they have no arguments, nor that the arguments have to carry equal weight.

Think of it, this happens all the time in the civil courts: there may not be definitive evidence either way; one has to decide the likelihood of either hypothesis on the balance of the arguments that were presented. It doesn't mean that they are equal or have to be. One of the hypotheses can be judged as more likely, as of this time and based on presented arguments. It's not the final truth, but until a) such definitive evidence emerges or b) new and essentially different meaningful arguments put forward, it would be the best conclusion one could have.

No, I do not confuse support documents and factual proof.

Any yes, they are not the same.

All I am saying and have said, there is no proof. Two very different things.

Do not try to wash it away. There is no similarity to civil court or any court unless you invoke unanimous agreement...in which case conjecture, theories or hypothesis is neither.

There are proven facts and then there are conjectures, hypothesis and theories... very different things, especially in science.

Been a pleasure and when there is or you have conclusive proof, I will fully agree and please, lets discuss again.

Have a good day.

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

There are proven facts and then there are conjectures, hypothesis and theories... very different things, especially in science.

Unfortunately science has a lot of conjectures and speculations that many claim as fact.  Good example is the theory of evolution which has been debunked by a number of scientists and educated professionals.

Still educational institutions still cling to it and teach it to school kids as if it is a scientific fact, when it is far from it.

It is a now debunked theory by many.  This has led many to believe in creation or intelligent design by a Creator.  

Some things just cannot be proven by the scientific method.  It is not possible to re-enact things like evolution and nobody was around to observe it as according to the theory it happened over millions of years.

In the case of the Covid virus, apparently no witnesses have come forward, as far as I know, to give credible proof of how it originated and was initially spread to humans.   That doesn't mean it was not spread from a laboratory in Wuhan.  It only means nobody has clear proof. 

It is pointless to debate over proof or hypothesis.  There may be good reasons for suspecting it originated from a lab.

So it seems rather nonsensical to post on here endlessly that there is no proof.  Proof is not necessary to have suspicions about something.  Lack of proof does not in any way end the subject. 

China has not cooperated in investigating it with other countries which also leads to suspicions that they know more about it than they are willing to admit.  Maybe China has something to hide.

Edited June 8 by blackbird

[suds]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Look, I am truly hoping that you understand what a"hypothesis" is?

While it may be educated, it is still just a guess, a theory that needs to be proven.I s it "beyond reasonable doubt"? No but, it is still unproven so, it is not fact.

Absolutely, if we get a final answer it will count but, until the "hypothesis " is proven, it is still just a theory.

There are scientific and non-scientific definitions for the terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory'.  Non-scientific usage of the terms often finds them being synonymous with one another. On the other hand, scientific usage of the terms defines 'hypothesis' as an assumption based on no data or research, while it defines 'theory' as being based on research and observable data.  YOU (not being a scientist) see them as being synonymous, while Alina Chan (a molecular biologist) uses the scientific definitions of the terms. Did Chan use both terms in her NYT piece? Yes she did, in describing the 'lab leak theory' as being theory based on observable evidence, and describing the claims of 'zoonotic spillover' as being simply hypothesis based on the fact that exactly zero evidence exists that Sars-CoV-2 was transmitted naturally from wild animals to humans.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope, Just have come to the realization that you are a F'n loser and full of BS.

Not a single post of yours is of any value except to fulfill your need to insult and demean.

Do you have to call upstairs to Mommy to make you the popcorn? LOL

ROFLMAO!!!!  Awwww triggered leftie is triggered! 

Aways love your full meltdowns   You lefties are always so brittle  

So you still couldn't come up with anything at all to refute the claims of the FBI or two medical professional teams who very directly say it was Wuhan.   But now once again it's my fault  

WAAAAAAAAHHHHH   The FBI  and all of medical science says i'm wrong because CDNFOX was mean to me!!!! WAAAAAHH!

 

Suck it up, muffin. I"m right,  the fbi is right, the small army of doctors who've looked into this are right,  you're wrong.  And that's YOUR fault, not mine. 

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO!!!!  Awwww triggered leftie is triggered! 

Aways love your full meltdowns   You lefties are always so brittle  

So you still couldn't come up with anything at all to refute the claims of the FBI or two medical professional teams who very directly say it was Wuhan.   But now once again it's my fault  

WAAAAAAAAHHHHH   The FBI  and all of medical science says i'm wrong because CDNFOX was mean to me!!!! WAAAAAHH!

 

Suck it up, muffin. I"m right,  the fbi is right, the small army of doctors who've looked into this are right,  you're wrong.  And that's YOUR fault, not mine. 

More blather.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

More blather.

Waaaaaaahh!!!!!! CDNFOX is SOOOO mean to meeeeeee!!!!

Still can't refute the medical science or the fbi  can you   

[eyeball]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The murder of billions?

[myata]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

All I am saying and have said, there is no proof. Two very different things.

Do not try to wash it away.

It's said exactly that. There's no documented final proof either way. That does not mean that there cannot be arguments, including strong ones in favor of either.

You don't accept anything but the final, documented proof: not a problem, it's your choice. The balance of likelihoods of the hypotheses based on the arguments is, more or less, an objective statement. For example only, if one is estimated as 2%, whereas the other 0.02% then the former is more likely to have occurred, objectively.

So please don't mix up and confuse two very different things: your individual perception; and an objective estimate of the likelihoods by certain qualified, independent and impartial jury.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Waaaaaaahh!!!!!! CDNFOX is SOOOO mean to meeeeeee!!!!

Still can't refute the medical science or the fbi  can you   

More and more blather

Still can't grasp the difference between hypothesis and fact and theory....yup Duhhhh LOL

A world according to canfx would be pretty fu*cked up LOL

Your stupidity is leaking out LOL

Edited June 8 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

More and more blather

 

Awwww poor little guy   Let me get you a lollipop and a puppy  

STILL can't refute the FBI and Medical experts.  Why won't you lefties follow the science for a change?  

At the end of the day all the experts are right and you're wrong.  It's that simple.  And whenever you're wrong, you want it to somehow be my fault. But it isn't. It's you. 

 

[ExFlyer]

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Awwww poor little guy   Let me get you a lollipop and a puppy  

STILL can't refute the FBI and Medical experts.  Why won't you lefties follow the science for a change?  

At the end of the day all the experts are right and you're wrong.  It's that simple.  And whenever you're wrong, you want it to somehow be my fault. But it isn't. It's you. 

 

Soap up and blather on LOL

You for sure ain't no expert and ...you are always wrong LOL

confux world...all fuxed up 

Edited June 8 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Soap up and blather on LOL

Awww still butthurt?  Poor little guy  You sure do cry a lot. 

The FBI, the Canadian medical experts, and the us medical experts are correct and you are wrong.  The wuhan lab is overwhelmingly the most likely source based on the facts and the science. 

Sowweeee -  did you need me to find you a safe space little guy?

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Awww still butthurt?  Poor little guy  You sure do cry a lot. 

The FBI, the Canadian medical experts, and the us medical experts are correct and you are wrong.  The wuhan lab is overwhelmingly the most likely source based on the facts and the science. 

Sowweeee -  did you need me to find you a safe space little guy?

Blah Blah Blah...   and the shit keeps leaking out of every orifice on your body

Edited June 8 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Blah Blah Blah...   and the shit keeps leaking out of every orifice on your body

You spend a lot of time fixated on other people's orifices  Is it possible the emotional problems you display here constantly might be a result of you wresting with certain "feelings" you're not comfortable with?  We're not here to judge you know.  

[ExFlyer]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You spend a lot of time fixated on other people's orifices  Is it possible the emotional problems you display here constantly might be a result of you wresting with certain "feelings" you're not comfortable with?  We're not here to judge you know.  

More Blah Blah Blah LOL

Shit comes from you...out of every port LOL

17.8K posts in a bit over a year...we all know your basement dwelling seclusion and this forum is all you have LOL

What a F'n loser...lives on a forum.

[myata]

Well, to be fair one boyscout here is well known to be prone to focusing on other people, in contrast to their arguments. In grade two they would normally already know the difference.

[ExFlyer]

47 minutes ago, myata said:

Well, to be fair one boyscout here is well known to be prone to focusing on other people, in contrast to their arguments. In grade two they would normally already know the difference.

C'mon, even you have to wonder how in a little over a year one person can put up 17,800 posts on a forum?

What does this person do besides stir shit on the forum.

How can one person spend so much time on a forum? No life elsewhere?

[myata]

40 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

How can one person spend so much time on a forum?

Well there are many options given the progress of technology and the proximity of the elections. As Russia and China know and shown. But let's stop here, as in the absence of evidence it could be classified as "speculation").