© 2023 41 Pushups, LLC
The article does a good job in identifying the way Covid spread it doesn’t identify the source of the virus
These live animal markets in China need to be shut down permanently! If the bats infected the animals, what can be done to eliminate these disease carriers? How did the disease develop in their bodies? Is China going to be held accountable?
Let’s say a lab worker was infected first. The lab worker happens to go to the popular nearby market to pick up dinner. A market vendor is infected. The single lab worker stays home a few days with mild “flu-like” symptoms. The results would be identical. This is also assuming the data out of China isn’t tainted. That is a big assumption. In addition, if the Chinese government was convinced the wet market was the source, as they originally claimed, why in the world would they open the market back up weeks later??? I used to have some respect for the journal, Science.
Matt & Editors:
First of all I am troubled by Web page title, “Study Finds.” Did that way of framing the conclusions and results of the work of researchers come from journalists? Studies don’t really find anything. It’s researchers who conduct studies that publish their conclusions and results from a given study. If your title were more accurate, as in near the truth, then it would be “Researchers Find,” and not as it is, which is not the whole truth. By the way, I studied science on the Colorado Plateau in Arizona in Northern AZ.
Also, why do serious scientists make statements as you published them herein, “The studies also claim that alternative COVID-19 origin theories are extremely unlikely.” Theory does not come off the cuff, but rather, it comes at the end of lots of analysis and synthesis of information, and more importantly, it can be repeated by other researchers using the same methodology, etc. Good science starts with a hypothesis, or a well thought-out assumption, or good educated guess, or even with a few pieces of evidence, but it’s not conjecture, speculation or good educated guess work that creates a “theory.” Again, studies don’t make claims, as the researchers along with the help of peers reviewing their analysis, and results that leads researchers who conduct the studies to make the claims, accordingly. However, those claims would NOT be theories, but alternative COVID-19 origin hypotheses that are unlikely. Every thought, idea, guess, even educated guessing, or assumption is NOT a theory, even when a scientist makes such claims according to speculation or guessing or conjecturing. I suggest that journalists learn the meaning of hypothesis, and conjecture, and then you can teach the public to better understand science, and how it works. Unfortunately, many scholars learn about theory from journalists, and the public is lead to believe that theory is nothing more than educated guessing even when there has been rigorous testing and verification of a hypothesis.
Here is an excerpt from the National Academies of Sciences:
“An idea that has not yet been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis. Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual evidence. Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science, if no verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis—one that is not fruitful; such hypotheses fail to stimulate research and are unlikely to advance scientific knowledge.
A fruitful hypothesis may develop into a theory after substantial observational or experimental support has accumulated. When a hypothesis has survived repeated opportunities for disproof and when competing hypotheses have been eliminated as a result of failure to produce the predicted consequences, that hypothesis may become the accepted theory explaining the original facts.
Scientific theories are also predictive. They allow us to anticipate yet unknown phenomena and thus to focus research on more narrowly defined areas. If the results of testing agree with predictions from a theory, the theory is provisionally corroborated. If not, it is proved false and must be either abandoned or modified to account for the inconsistency.
Scientific theories, therefore, are accepted only provisionally. It is always possible that a theory that has withstood previous testing may eventually be disproved. But as theories survive more tests, they are regarded with higher levels of confidence.
In science, then, facts are determined by observation or measurement of natural or experimental phenomena. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of those facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained wide acceptance because it has survived rigorous investigation of its predictions.
Science accommodates, indeed welcomes, new discoveries: its theories change and its activities broaden as new facts come to light or new potentials are recognized. Examples of events changing scientific thought are legion. Truly scientific understanding cannot be attained or even pursued effectively when explanations not derived from or tested by the scientific method are accepted.”
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council(1984), pp. 8-11.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 1992. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1864.
In closing, journalists lead by example, and you have the responsibility to lead the public to the most truthful understanding of science and how science works. Theory is not extemporaneous explanations of natural phenomena, or the randomness thereof. Science is not about alternative “truths,” but about getting to a real understanding of the reality in which we live, think, and reside.
The Wuhan virology research center is almost next door to the seafood market. The testing of samples from the market is not new news. They were found and tested many months ago and were found not to be an intermediate between viruses such as were found in bats, but to be identical to the virus shed by initial human cases. The number of samples testing positive for the virus were extremely small compared to the total number of samples taken making it more likely that the material was deposited by a human host rather than transferred from a number of animals to a large number of humans. All of this is discussed, with extensive references, in the book “Viral”.
This is all bs. China created this virus with money and at the behest of/from the US democrat party to destroy Trump, his presedency, and the republican party. However, it wasn’t supposed to go world wide, that was an accident. Look up Diamond Princess cruise lines, and how it was introduced to the US, and purposely spread from coast to coast, and not quarantined. How the democrats and media made the “prediction” of how this would determine/effect Trump’s reelection, depending on how he handled it when it first “affected” the US in late 2019.. Why did the democrats raise such a stink, and call Trump a racist and xenophobe for trying to ban flights/people coming to the US from China…? There’s much more to this if you have the ability to think for yourself and do some research and not be a democrat/media parrot and sheep.
Let’s think about this: How in the heck would they do this?
This smacks of more obfuscation by the WHO, probably under threat from the CCP, which seems to be threatening everybody these days. The WHO may simply be trying to keep peace rather than find the truth. We’ve already had studies of the wet market and no evidence was found in any animals there. Now we suddenly get this reversal, and based on a CCP study (who would have every reason to lie, simply to avoid being disappeared by their government as some of the early Chinese scientists were, or outright killed).
As others have noted, the Wuhan lab is also smack in the area of the early infections, just yards from the market. So the supposed geographic evidence also could implicate the lab. Which, by the way, is the only known repository of SARS-like coronaviruses in the region. The closest relative of the virus is found 900 miles away. In bats. Which are not sold at the market, even though we were initially led to believe they were.
Dr. Andersen, quoted in the article, has also had credibility issues due to his being involved in the series of emails that delayed accurate information getting in the hands of the public. Also, he privately thought the lab could be a source. He is not the person to quote or rely on here.
Very disappointed in the reporting in this article, which is essentially spreading propaganda from the CCP. Well, at least most of the media is simply regurgitating what they are told, unquestioningly, so I guess SF is no worse. But I thought they were better and they are losing their own credibility by uncritically examining this report, which proves nothing but makes big claims.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *