"Covid DID Emerge From A Lab, Says New Study"
hmm
hmm
and it was against the hidden rules to say this on FB
hmm

I'm sure you have good reason to be in this thread in the first place when the whole thing is just some useless topic on the internet. I'm sure it's not for some vain attempts to claim some cultural victory of your own so you feel validated. I wonder if you'll be able to resist the bait like you didn't ask if i was hypocritical or not. But, since you're not a hypocrite yourself, surely you have the power to resist this obvious vain temptation.
Did you seriously need authorities to tell you that?

Of course, I am good tactful obeying peasant
I don't want to cause emotional distress to anybody, by writing different opinions.

Well there's your answer. :P Liver and kidney would be luxury compared to tripe and dripping.

Narratives are spun with intent. Often they sound good and "factual," but they are built on anything but fact.

Thanks for clarifying. It's hard to tell when people are sarcastic unless you know their history and writing style. And it doesn't make much sense to me when discussing consequential subjects, with a history of severe misinformation, as some people might get the wrong idea. Yes, they're inefficient and wasteful. But they serve a functional purpose (mitigating negative externalities and maximizing social utility when consumers are unaware), existed in different forms (traditional command and control / direct law, market-based, self-regulation, co-regulation), and have varying effectiveness based on the issue.

You might have to elaborate on where these incentives are coming from - if it's coming from governments through tax credits or subsidies, it's a form of regulation.

Anyway, providing financial incentives is not a blanket solution to fixing these externalities. They are effective for point source pollution, but not necessarily biodiversity / environment reclamation, which is relevant in these zoonotic-caused epidemics (and COVID-19 depending on the pending report). Under market-based instrument regulations, their shortcomings involve slow changes because of voluntary compliance, requires all participants to buy in to gain high effectiveness, ineffective if the costs to participate are high, and need checks so bigger players don't undermine the intended policy. This is relevant to the developed vs developing countries' corporation track record. This is exactly why I said everyone has to buy in because the developing countries can always produce goods and services cheaper if the regulations aren't highly enforced by their respective governments.This is also confirmed from the below sources. Particularly, the last meta-analysis paper suggests for biodiversity the technology-aided direct law and/or incorporation with market-based instrument regulations to tackle issues of biodiversity.

- https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/market-based-mechanisms-for-biodiversity-conservation-a-review-of
- https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084651?journalCode=lawsocsci This was my source. The first report uses a loaded headline and sourced an Israeli mliitary officer on China with no evidence, a US senator also accused with no evidence, experts dismissed with research, and the sequenced genomes had natural origins in 9 collaborative studies up to mid-February. Even now, most US experts according to this US infectious disease epidemiologist believe it's more likely to have spread from animals than from the lab.

I'm not sure how this news about the hypothesis translates to sacrificing lives. Wars and "conflicts" (am I right in assuming military conflicts?) are a negative-sum game between direct participants. Both sides lose when lives are lost and extensive damage is done compared to mutual cooperation where both sides benefit from avoiding conflict and war. I'm not sure how you think it's anti-vaxxer propaganda. This all sounds like good info and you have a good idea of what you're talking about, but it's going above my head as a layperson not in epidemiology, public health, or a politician. Though I am skeptical there were more reasons not to ban all air travel because of virtue-signalling anti-racism. If you have educational sources on this, would appreciate it. I'm not sure how you'd go about isolating culture from raw data even if you did look as much historical data as possible, especially if diets are tied to culture especially in the past. With your preserved meat example, this literature review paper suggests these processed meats containing 4x the amount of sodium is what's contributing to higher rates of CVD and that eating meat amounts at recommended doses do not significantly increase CVD risk. I try to include original messages if I can. I previously encountered errors with posting messages with long quote strings, which is why "snip" is preferable. I'll keep that in mind going forward, however. You know me and my approach. Everything needs to be assessed fairly on a case-by-case basis, which I pointed out above is exactly the same case here. Experts are divided (to what extent, I don't know) on its origins and always having more credible and reliable data to dissect never hurts in the world of science. As we've seen, current understanding of anything including science, isn't perfect. We are working with stat probability and risk management comes into play here when experts mention likelihood. By resource allocation, of course you want to focus your limited resources on the most-likely scenarios than scenarios that are possible, but are very, very low in likelihood. Assessing likelihood is based on years of historical data and empirical literature. In cases where I can't decipher their literature, I'll take my chances with them with their established methodology than conspiracies based on cognitive biases every single time.

Or, you know, not financing research on gain of function in bat viruses could be a good start, too. Wild meat and mass produced meat are two completely different things, as well. Trusting any "meat" grown in a lab is naive.

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research

When someone makes a claim that is proven wrong by actual scientists and people who actually graduated from college, he can always claim "but I was just being sarcastic." Instead of owning up to the fact that he was dead wrong.

You mean the colleges teaching Communism has historically worked and there's 57 different genders and critical race theory?

It's not my fault you never actually went to college, and that as such you don't know that your far right information is dead wrong. In college people learn information that will help them succeed in life, it's unfair that many people are denied this information, but mocking the colleges simply because you were unable to attend doesn't change that if you want to succeed in life, you need to become college educated.

Thanks for bringing these issues up. Again, let's wait for the report before making any conclusions. I'm also not aware of any issues with lab-grown meat as it's still a currently new tech. And to clarify lab-grown meat, I also mean plant-based meat and other meat substitutes too.

In general, wild meat and mass produced meat both present zoonotic risks and therefore can be grouped as potential issues. One expert also warns how bushmeat being traded around the world are also hosts to zoonotic diseases. All it would take is a probability of zoonotic virus, improperly cooked or preserved meat, and jumping the human barrier for another epidemic to start. Hence why bushmeat hunting and trading should be banned.

I appreciate the sentiment (or satire), but kohlrak was pretty sarcastic disregarding human transmission. People with this idea would have to be deeply misinformed to still believe this a year in that it can't be spread between humans.

Shouldn't the context of the rest of my posts been enough? I guess maybe not if you also don't know my posting history, which is reasonable. The issue is, iefficiency and waste ultimately lead to pollution even if it's not immediately apparent, and this happens at multiple levels depending on the nature of the waste. And this isn't even controversial, as the simplest examples are energy inefficient equipment or vehicles which we regularly address as the simplest form to look at. I believe that, here in the west, we still have plenty of room for arguments to be effective. I believe that the powers that be are ultimately a reflection of common folk, thus society at large needs to address issues to be most efficient. Law seems to be society's least efficient control mechanism, yet simultaneously one of it's most powerful weapons, while still managing to allow society to shoot itself in teh foot (as seen from the primary subject of the thread). The one thing that's nice about the culture war, is that if the signalling turned to reflect more practical concerns instead of shallow representations that do more good for corporate interests than the proposed concerns, it would actually have a practical impact, and it would less likely appear as an actual war. The problem is, who controls the conversations?

Separate for the environment, for a second, to reflect "the US southern border issue," and how pretend concern for the individuals coming across is doing more harm than good. I think anyone who's taken the time to see a conversation with both sides on the issue have seen the usual economic arguments beat to death, so there's no point in mentioning that. However what's less known is that lack of information these individuals often have before "starting the journey." A good portion of them make the journey thinking it's entirely legitimate and sactioned by both the US government and the general US population, which i think we can all agree isn't true. Moreover, once they start this path, they're often extorted to go the rest of the way, and this often does not end well for these individuals (and a number of them have their journies ended in horrible ways due to their own ethical inhibitions as any US Border Patrol agent will tell you [you'd be surprised how often these officers end up saving lives because someone didn't want to be a drug mule or something]). Of course, all this would be obvious to anyone who actually talked to (hell, at least watch a long interview with) either a border patrol agent and/or one of the migrants (a surprising number of them end up learning english or already speak english). But, you see, it's easier for the average person on social media or more profitable for the average corporation to simply state an opinion or join the conversation without actually involving themselves with any of the people in the actual situation.

Now, back to the environment, how do you think that looks on an issue that is clearly more complicated? Anyone who thinks the "green technology" and such is a net loss for the corporate system needs to re-examine how they believe the whole system works. A corporation itself may take losses, but CEOs, politicians, and your high level players on the market don't take loses, you (the individual who was forced by the government to put money into the stock market through a 401k mandate) do. There was also stuff coming from the common citizenry, as well, including the frontline healthcare workers. You might have heard of this guy who got in hot water simply for being one of the individuals behind what's now cosidered the official story. Good luck finding much of anything else as main "town square" of facebook, twitter, etc largely scrubbed what they could from their platforms, which is pale in comparison to what happened here, which i'm sure makes everyone comfortable coming forward at this point in China. If that which you're placing into the war isn't valuable (or not as valuable as it should be), it's not a negative-sum game for you, which is precisely the point I'm making. If it was exclusively negative-sum for both parties, why ever participate? Obviously you believe you have something to gain. So, those most anxious to start wars have the least concern for human life (generally speaking, of course, as it's not hard to come up with reasonable exceptions that are yet not the general rule). It's common anti-vaxer propaganda that you're being given a live dose of a virus. While this can actually be true, it's almost never the case, and aside from certain vaccines like the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, it's patently false. The Moderna and Pfeizer vaccines, for example, inject part of the virus into your body, and by definition it isn't life (even if it still goes through some of the process). I'm a layperson, too. This is all stuff (or based on stuff) that's more or less introductory to the field. Yes, this actually highschool (american standards) level biology, so I expect the average gog user to either remember enough to follow along or be able to some simple research on their own to reacclimate themselves with this material, then use deductive reasoning. Dare I say it's our responsibility for those of us in countries where voting is the case, during a situation of this magnited with this much gravity on our lives, to actually take the time to learn about this. We're wondering why people can't wear masks, why so much information is being spread and believed, etc, but then look at the attitude people on both sides are actually approaching this with. If there's something I'm missing, I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't expect it to be something astronomically complex. And the thing is, alot of this is also basic info for things like cancer, other viral disease, genetic disorders, etc, which is why the basics of things like the functions of the cell are disseminated to as part of the mandatory courses for the lowest certificate of education in the US of all places. I understand most adults would have forgotten the explanation of how viruses work, but the idea that people actually believe that the mRNA vaccines permanently alter your DNA should be an insult to every highschool biology teacher. If there were, the arguments were horridly disseminated to the public. Just looking right now, i can find this article and a New York Times article that's blocked with a paywall. Apparently Biden was one of them, too, which should come as no surprise. While not quite the same, and in a different country, we had this going on, which has aged ever so well. Therein lies the point. It's like the Race and IQ studies, you can't consider that scientific when there's so many oustanding correlations in addition to race that could very much play a role (culture, location, etc). There inlies a problem with alot of our studies into certain issues, because we're not able to maintain enough controls and instead have too many variables. While this information might be useful, I have to stress that it's fundamentally unscientific. This stuff is not going to be considered rigorous science 100 years from now, let alone 500.

I was more thinking of fruit, but we could talk about the effects of water solubles in the blood stream, kidney function, etc. Oh wait, maybe not, given how far we've already drifted off topic. However, i think it would be sufficient to point out that this is not exclusively a meat issue by any stretch of imagination. You might have a stronger case with LDL, but then i would point out vegetable fats. Do yourself a favor, just do some research on the great egg debate and just watch the science flow on both sides over whether eggs are better or worse for cholesterol (hint: it gets more interesting when you look at HDL), although this is a little beyond basic highschool biology. I think you can still keep up, though, since you seem to like citing scientific papers, I assume you can read them. Some users complain and say you should just make separate posts and include the whole quotes, but I believe that is unnecessary if you're intelligent about the parts you cut out. Sure, it can be annoying, but so is waiting for the cutoff time for the posts not to merge hoping that you don't end up getting responses before you post the entirety of what you have in notepad++ (or whatever you use), resulting in a completely disorganized mess (ufortunately, with this post this is what is going to happen due to shear size of the post). We could also say that GOG's not the best place for this kind of discussion, but, well, i would certainly agree, however for certain topics discussion on GOG is absolutely necessary (especially where poducts and services of GOG intersect), though staff loves to disagree (I don't blame them personally, 'cause I doubt this is their personal policy). Yeah, I have no qualms about investigating every viable avenue. However some of us like to gloat a little after over a year of being callled conspiracy theorists when those same people are pretty much forced to turn around and start agreeing, even if they refuse to us. However, it's really important to push back on this "we couldn't have known" crap, because if we, ourselves, were convinced, the idea that others, especially the powers that be that condemned us, couldn't have had even so much of a suspicion is an absolute disgrace to the persuit of truth. Worse is the whole "bat soup" theory that even China eventually dismissed getting taken more seriously. There's some huge perspective issues in some of these theories. For example, does anyone know about where the bat species in question live? So that's where we fundamentally disagree: their "established methodology." All I can say to that is, try to get the opinion of any scientist "on the other side" of any issue (even a less politically incendiary issue than this one) and see what they have to say about that. The simple answer to that one is that every system has a game. Computer models are probably the easiest target in this regard.

More specifically, I was referencing the World Health Organization, Dr. Fauci, and a number of others. I really do feel sorry for anyone who takes my sarcasm seriously at this point, because the lowest standard for serious, right now, is the people who believe it's influenza (even if they're wrong, at least there's usually some deductive reasoning going on there).

Far right extremists like you are the ones doing more harm than good. No one is pretending to be concerned about their fellow human's lives, but to someone who only cares about his own wealth and has no problem with people starving in the streets, it's understandable you don't welcome foreigners with open arms.

The majority of the US voting population voted against racism, so people seeking a better life from conservative countries are more than welcome to come here. We realize that far right extremists have poisoned the well and made it absurdly difficult to even get a green card, all because of their xenophobia. If you actually cared so much about illegals, you'd try making it easier for them to be legal!