I'm not talking about the stated conclusions of the report. I'm talking about the stated facts in there that raise, to me, questions. There are a lot of "circumstances" here and a lot of opportunities for people to tamper with forensic evidence post hoc.

Here is summary of evidence that seems legit (US gov) and that raises uncomfortable questions regarding what they were doing with coronavirus variants in WIV just near where the outbreak happened. Call this a Baysian prior, which raises some questions about the posterior

www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/d...

PNAS concrete enough for you?
"SARS-CoV-2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses"
www.pnas.org/doi/full/10....

As in, these question are not concrete questions? Say, regarding the suggesting gain of function experiments? Said cleavage site?

There are many questions. about collection of CoV samples from bats, suggestions of gain of function experiments that happen to coincide with this specific virus, etc. These questions remain unanswered to the best of my knowledge.

Thanks this was useful. I would like to consider it before replying in more detail. However, in principle, any claims made on data that could have been post-hoc adjusted by interested parties are to be treated as such. Regarding genome - why would it look different from gain of function in the lab?

The original post had specified that lab leak theory has been "contradicted by already available evidence". By contrast "intelligent design" is too vague a concept to contradict.

As far as I understand there is no single shred of evidence that "contradicts" the lab leak theory. Is there one? Would you like to enlighten me? Emphasis on contradict.

There is a deeper problem. By focusing on "justice" - a subjective concept defined by values that may or may not be shared - the focus on "climate change" is lost.
Saying "justice" a lot is *great* for virtue signaling.
Conversely, the climate is everyone's problem and should not be subjective.

Excellent review, summarizing a lot of the difficulties encountered and a lot of the techniques used.

This is a straw-man argument. Nobody said Arts & Humanities are useless. But there are astounding uses for large language models, yes, including generating text for e.g. sales and marketing. Ignore this technology at your own peril. Adapt or go extinct.

What is the *problem* your paper *addresses*. Assume that nobody wants to read your work, but they might *have to* because it will help them with their problem. So simple. So important.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIz...

Well, yes, but there is a broader definition: in the economic sense where several independent players "divide-up the cake" to exclude other competitors from entering the market.

How could that possibly work in experimental labs? (Most of science). Also - many student complain of remote work/zoom and request in-person meetings. Finally - local universities will never be on par with major centers because prestige breeds prestige. Even if possible (it isn't), it won't happen.

Indeed. For me, the biggest shift was the "I believe her unless she's Jewish" regarding the rape victims of Oct 7.
The woke hide not only a ton of antisemitism, but also a ton of hate for anyone perceived wrong, in a world view that neatly divides the world to right and wrong with zero nuance.

I love that several of the replies I got accused me of being a man and of being white. So predictable.
Others just called me an idiot, ad-hominem as it gets. Also predictable.
For the record, I'm not conservative in the least. I am a left wing, liberal, and feminist. I've always voted so.

Woke means seeing every human interaction naïvely as oppressor and oppressed, with the judgement who is who based solely on skin color and gender.
This makes the "woke" *dangerous fools* who can be weaponized by cynical political activists.
Don't agree with me? Just ask Liz Magill.

Beautiful paper. Communicates well with the notion of "Microbial Cartels".
elifesciences.org/articles/22644

So now you want to actively discriminate against people coming from somewhere else? That's a slippery slope. What if the place a candidate came from has no academic options at all?