.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
191
Something smelling musky -- the age of undemocratic in your face oligarchy in the USA.
The election is done. What Trump 2.0 is doing has just begun. If you find that boring, you may just not read about it. Sorted. -
56
Short Time: Dream or Dilemma?
An associate once said, "I wouldn't touch one unless I was wearing a wetsuit". -
146
Official: Trump Nominates RFK Jr. for Health Secretary
You keep saying this but provide no evidence. Surely if it was zoonotic and originated from a single wet market animals or animal meat in said market would show the presence of this virus complete with the novel spike proteins so well suited to attach to human cells. Animals were tested and no evidence of this virus was found. There is no such evidence. Why is that? Before we get into the facts, let's address the primary issue here which I suggest is with your logical reasoning, which centers around 'Argument from Ignorance': Argument from Ignorance: Your claim that "no animals were found with the virus" as evidence against zoonosis assumes that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This overlooks the complexities of incomplete testing and delayed investigations. Given the vast range of testing gaps and the market's early sanitation, it’s unreasonable to dismiss zoonosis based solely on the failure to find infected animals in one location. Now let’s examine the other logical flaws in your argument: 1. Strawman Fallacy: You misrepresent the zoonotic spillover theory by suggesting it only relies on finding infected animals in the market. Zoonosis is supported by broader evidence, like the virus’s genetic relationship to bat coronaviruses and environmental traces in the market, not just direct animal tests. 2. False Dichotomy: You suggest that the lack of infected animals in the market rules out zoonosis, but this ignores other plausible scenarios, like infected animals being removed before testing or spillover occurring upstream in the wildlife trade. 3. Cherry-Picking: You focus on the absence of positive animal tests while ignoring other supporting evidence, such as the virus’s genetic ties to bats and its receptor-binding adaptations that make it suited for human cells. 4. Overgeneralization: You dismiss zoonosis based on a lack of direct evidence from one market, but spillover events are inherently complex. For example, it took years to identify intermediaries for SARS-CoV-1. 5. Begging the Question: Your rhetorical question, “Why is that?” assumes the conclusion that zoonosis is unsupported without addressing potential gaps like incomplete sampling or market conditions. Let’s address these logical flaws first, then we can delve into the facts later. -
2
Am I suddenly old? Everyone is smiling and helping me!
Maybe you are pregnant ... -
146
Official: Trump Nominates RFK Jr. for Health Secretary
Well, that's an interesting collection of non sequiturs. Yes, America is obese. Australia is not far behind you. You may be right, RFK jr. may address those issues. The main concern is whether he throws out the baby with the bathwater. Fluoridation is one of the most successful public health measures ever, stopping it would be going back 50-60 years. I'm retired, don't have a job. See, you can do it if you try. Not a single error in your post. -
20
Accusations of Hypocrisy as Private Jet use Doubles Travelling to Cop29
There is nothing like a Socialist enjoying their turn at the trough. -
422
Thailand's Expats Urged to Register with TRD for Tax, Says Expert
So in my case, if my income is below THB500K, I don't have to file. Actually, we are two unmarried people over 65 who live together, so we both have an allowance of THB500K + THB500K = THB1M; we have joint accounts worldwide and comingle funds. -
56
Short Time: Dream or Dilemma?
What "words" do you have to describe it ,any new ones?
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts