Published information about the origins of Covid -19 is just that. Information. And theories. About something that happened in a country where they dont exactly let in scientists to investigate.
this published information and theories are not "evidence", no matter how many times you refer to it as such.
Published information about the origins of Covid -19 is just that. Information. And theories. About something that happened in a country where they dont exactly let in scientists to investigate.
this published information and theories are not "evidence", no matter how many times you refer to it as such.
how can you possibly evaluate information and claim it's not evidence when you obviously haven't read it?
Please share your best and most conclusive "evidence" that covid-19's genesis was natural transmission . And if it's so compelling, offer your theory of why two US Intel agencies would presumably have access to this "evidence" and still indicate lab leak, one with moderate confidence.
this is such an easy argument to win. I just have to show the lab leak theory isn't discredited, which two US Intel agencies saying lab leak accomplishes. Period.
You're trying to show the lab leak theory is discredited which is pretty much impossible to do given the two US Intel agencies' stance. If the agencies change their tune tomorrow you'd win but without that you have nothing.
The DOE did have a report with a "low confidence" determination that it was a lab leak. There are other scientists, inside and outside of government, who come to different conclusions. What Drum wrote was, "The lab leak hypothesis has always been unlikely, and over time has gotten ever more unlikely. It's all but completely discredited now." Whether you think the available evidence supports his "all but completely" closing phrase, his general point is that the criticism of NPR for not completely accepting the "lab leak" isn't supported by facts.
There's no criticism of NPR for "not completely accepting" the lab leak theory.
The criticism was for dismissing the lab leak theory out of hand. Big difference.
Bottom line, 1/3 of Drum's rebuttal is nuked by his false premise that the lab leak theory is "all but completely discredited".
The DOE did have a report with a "low confidence" determination that it was a lab leak. There are other scientists, inside and outside of government, who come to different conclusions. What Drum wrote was, "The lab leak hypothesis has always been unlikely, and over time has gotten ever more unlikely. It's all but completely discredited now." Whether you think the available evidence supports his "all but completely" closing phrase, his general point is that the criticism of NPR for not completely accepting the "lab leak" isn't supported by facts.
There's no criticism of NPR for "not completely accepting" the lab leak theory.
The criticism was for dismissing the lab leak theory out of hand. Big difference.
Bottom line, 1/3 of Drum's rebuttal is nuked by his false premise that the lab leak theory is "all but completely discredited".
Pray tell, what news did I miss that has all but completely discredited the lab leak theory ? (Restated opinions of liberal bloggers don't count.)
please share. This offer extends to ml1 and nohero who have also endorsed Drum's argument.
I didn't endorse it. I referred back to it because it was already posted and it would have been redundant for me to write essentially the same thing. And as others have pointed out, it wasn't an opinion. It was pointing out that Berliner wasn't being accurate with his so-called facts.
The rest of his piece, who knows? It's inside NPR stuff, and as I mentioned already I NEVER listen to it. So what do I know?
The DOE did have a report with a "low confidence" determination that it was a lab leak. There are other scientists, inside and outside of government, who come to different conclusions. What Drum wrote was, "The lab leak hypothesis has always been unlikely, and over time has gotten ever more unlikely. It's all but completely discredited now." Whether you think the available evidence supports his "all but completely" closing phrase, his general point is that the criticism of NPR for not completely accepting the "lab leak" isn't supported by facts.
There's no criticism of NPR for "not completely accepting" the lab leak theory.
The criticism was for dismissing the lab leak theory out of hand. Big difference.
Bottom line, 1/3 of Drum's rebuttal is nuked by his false premise that the lab leak theory is "all but completely discredited".
"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Your rote citations of atheism’s Einstein would be more incisive if they were applicable. In this discussion, a lab leak hasn’t been asserted.
But there’s still room for Drummerboy’s Razor: Without evidence, possibilities are impossible.
I'm pretty sure the discussion is about the fact that Berliner is claiming that the assertion of the lab leak theory was ignored by NPR. My rote citation is explaining why NPR can give the theory short shrift.
The DOE did have a report with a "low confidence" determination that it was a lab leak. There are other scientists, inside and outside of government, who come to different conclusions. What Drum wrote was, "The lab leak hypothesis has always been unlikely, and over time has gotten ever more unlikely. It's all but completely discredited now." Whether you think the available evidence supports his "all but completely" closing phrase, his general point is that the criticism of NPR for not completely accepting the "lab leak" isn't supported by facts.
There's no criticism of NPR for "not completely accepting" the lab leak theory.
The criticism was for dismissing the lab leak theory out of hand. Big difference.
Bottom line, 1/3 of Drum's rebuttal is nuked by his false premise that the lab leak theory is "all but completely discredited".
That's awesome. never did see him live which I regret. $8.50!
I did read Petty: The Biography by Warren Zanes, if you haven't I recommend it.
saw Petty five times including the last tour. But the show in 1980 was mind blowing for me. First great all out rock & roll show I ever saw. Even the Heartbreakers couldn't match that intensity on subsequent tours.
your hole is getting deeper, but keep digging. it's entertaining.
I understand you’re a die-hard member of Team Natural Transmission which is great. However I’m not here to debate whether it was natural transmission or a lab leak which you’re trying to pivot to. I’m simply saying that the lab leak theory is hardly “all but completely discredited” as your hero Drum claims. My basis for this is that two of six US govt intel agencies indicate lab leak, including the only moderate confidence assessment of the six , and the most recent assessment of the six.
If that’s not good enough for you than so be it - put on your TNT uni and find someone else to play with today.
your hole is getting deeper, but keep digging. it's entertaining.
I understand you’re a die-hard member of Team Natural Transmission which is great. However I’m not here to debate whether it was natural transmission or a lab leak which you’re trying to pivot to. I’m simply saying that the lab leak theory is hardly “all but completely discredited” as your hero Drum claims. My basis for this is that two of six US govt intel agencies indicate lab leak, including the only moderate confidence assessment of the six , and the most recent assessment of the six.
If that’s not good enough for you than so be it - put on your TNT uni and find someone else to play with today.
Just to be clear - I'm a member of Team Who's Got The Best Explanation So Far.
And yet again, you cling to a poll of government agencies who have provided, by my count, exactly ZERO pieces of evidence for their positions. While you perseverate over how much discreditation constitutes "all but completely", because, god damn it, eff Kevin Drum.
your hole is getting deeper, but keep digging. it's entertaining.
I understand you’re a die-hard member of Team Natural Transmission which is great. However I’m not here to debate whether it was natural transmission or a lab leak which you’re trying to pivot to. I’m simply saying that the lab leak theory is hardly “all but completely discredited” as your hero Drum claims. My basis for this is that two of six US govt intel agencies indicate lab leak, including the only moderate confidence assessment of the six , and the most recent assessment of the six.
If that’s not good enough for you than so be it - put on your TNT uni and find someone else to play with today.
Just to be clear - I'm a member of Team Who's Got The Best Explanation So Far.
And yet again, you cling to a poll of government agencies who have provided, by my count, exactly ZERO pieces of evidence for their positions. While you perseverate over how much discreditation constitutes "all but completely", because, god damn it, eff Kevin Drum.
And what in god's name is a TNT uni?
you're very proud of your skepticism and need to see data but in this situation you're being skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical.
these are intelligence agencies. Working with a backdrop of two adversarial or even enemy nations. Of course they're not going to open the kimono on everything they know. I'm guessing it has to do with not compromising sources among other things.
So it's perfectly reasonable to accept their assessments even if they're based on information that's not made public. dismissing the intel assessments because you can't see what's behind them is silly.
I know skepticism in this instance suits your narrative though, so you do you.
Published information about the origins of Covid -19 is just that. Information. And theories. About something that happened in a country where they dont exactly let in scientists to investigate.
this published information and theories are not "evidence", no matter how many times you refer to it as such.