“It is a misinterpretation of our research to suggest that the novel coronavirus originated outside China”
This is a direct quote from the scientist whose work you are trying to cite. It was added to the article because people like you were intentionally misinterpreting his work.
Don’t try this “something you haven’t researched” shit when you clearly don’t know the first thing about phylogenomics.
You really don’t have to. It’s a theory anyone who knows anything about the science won’t take seriously. It just gained traction because some Chinese media claimed it was a possibility after the Wuhan lab leak theory was getting talked up in western media. That’s why hexbears latched onto it so much. However, in a weirdly new way to express western chauvinism, many hexbears just ignore the Chinese scientists who did the hard work of helping to identify the likely origins of Covid. They mean well and rightfully question the US state department story but it’s painfully frustrating all the same.
No that’s not how this works. There are a so many things that could cause respiratory illnesses and the vast majority of them aren’t covid. Whatever you say was happening at ft detrick doesn’t have to be covid at all. You only believe it so because the narrative suits your particular bias. Again you’re doing exactly what the author of this article is doing, minus her capacity to fake scientific credibility for a general audience and her pro state departments bias.
More importantly, if you even want to suggest it was covid you would have to be able to explain away the evidence we do have. That’s something the author of this article tries but fails to do. I don’t expect you’ll have better arguments than the papers she cites. You’d have better luck parroting what they say if you want to make your case.
That said, I feel like I’m going to have a hard time convincing you you’re wrong because I doubt you understand anything about the science in question. You first need to understand that virologists can trace the evolution of a virus down to a precise timescale and lineage. Viruses mutate in a predictably rapidly but consistent rate. Think of their genetic code as like an atomic clock in a way. It’s so precise in fact that scientists can trace the origins of every circulating strain of Covid to a set of almost uniformly identical strains found in Wuhan. They can also pin down a precise time point for when those strains started spreading in humans. From that they can conclude that it is incredibly unlikely the virus was spreading in humans before reaching Wuhan. Additionally scientists can lay out the locations of where the virus was as it mutated and spread, not just globally but within Wuhan itself. That analysis shows us that the Wuhan wet market was the likely epicenter of the spread. There’s more but if you want to discuss further than that you’ll really need to read up on the tools and methods virologists use.
That’s all to say that the evidence available makes any ft detrick scenario just so incredibly unlikely it’s not worth considering seriously. Seek truth from facts BMF and you’ll be much better at deducing when and how the state department is lying to you.
If you believe that then you’re making the same mistake as this author just without the whole carrying water for imperialism thing which of course matters.
In my ignorance I thought that once there was a scientific consensus that a zoonotic crossover event was the likely origin for covid this shit would be over, at least among liberals. How naive I was…
This article is motivated reasoning at its best. It’s drawing conclusions about the likelihood of a lab leak based purely on circumstantial evidence. That’s not how science works! That kind of reasoning is the basis for race science, climate change denialism, and all sorts of other pseudoscientific nonsense. You can’t just say “There is some uncertainty in climate models and also it snowed today so obviously global warming is a myth”. You also can’t casually dismisses the evidence presented that point to a zoonotic origin of the virus without good counter evidence.
The fact remains that most of the preeminent virologists in the world believe a zoonotic crossover event was the likely origin of Covid. The World Health Organization made a statement to that effect and they haven’t changed their position. Even Fauci recently testified in front of congress and said the same thing. The author of this article, Alina Chan, is not taken seriously in the field. She’s just some fucking post doc who wanted a book deal.
It just goes to show how much the liberal line of “Listen to the science” is such bullshit if all the opinions in the NYT are pseudo intellectual hacks that obediently regurgitate the US state department line.
It’s a timeless look
They have 3 members on NPC and one of the two cochair slots. That’s not a majority but if you count BnR and Marxist Unity Group there is a Marxist majority on the NPC.
Seriously, I’m trying to understand why the hell they would do this. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot to spite the shoemaker.
The international supremacy of the US economy relies on dollar hegemony and US imperialist foreign policy. The whole point is to be able to import cheap goods from other countries. If China’s rise is a threat to that then why accelerate the process?
The only rationale I can think of is the Biden admin legitimately thinks the Chinese economy cannot grow without access to the American market and that tariffs have the power to curtail such access. That seems so incredibly naive though for a whole number of reasons. It’s hard to imagine people with that much power are just that obtuse.
Don’t worry, Biden just imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs so they can rest easy now.
The ignorance on display here is comedy gold. I honestly have a hard time believing it’s not just actual leftists trolling for fun. Like the one commenter who brought up the Khmer Rouge in order to imply the CPV was morally equivalent. Amazing, just simply amazing lol.
They’re trots. To them the transitional method is gospel. They think that you can trick libs into supporting revolution if you make enough reformist demands. It’s idealism pure and simple.
It’s complicated. Chiang Kai-shek was a historical adversary of the CPC and is viewed as a traitor and war criminal in the PRC. However, his nationalist party, the KMT, is alive and well in Taiwan. The CPC currently favors the KMT even though they were former adversaries because the KMT advocates for deepening economic ties to the PRC.
With this context I’m guessing the KMT’s primary opposition, the DPP, wants to highlight the KMT’s fascist legacy while also conflating the KMT’s and the CPC’s expression of Chinese nationalism. Making that false equivalency is easier because of the KMT’s interest in building stronger economic ties with the mainland.
Western media usually frames issues from the DPP’s perspective which would explain the commentary in the article.
That’s not the case though. This article should serve as an example of that. Red Star was a small ML caucus in San Francisco a few years back. Now they’re a national force that hold a sizable number of positions in DSA national leadership including one of DSA’s two cochairs. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the authors of this article were liberals when they first joined DSA.
I disagree that’s it’s pointless. I think it’s a necessary precondition towards building an effective party that actually has a mass membership given the conditions of the US. However if people disagree and want to join PSL or CPUSA instead then they should!
DSA isn’t a party though and it doesn’t operate like one. It’s more like an association if that makes sense. As they become more party like and do things like send delegations to other countries it’s important they learn from their mistakes. The point of this article is to kick off a set of reforms that will prevent embarrassing things like this from recurring.
That’s basically one of the things this article is arguing for. The problem with DSA is most of the committees and chapters are just making it up as they go.
To be fair to DSA it’s not just social democrats anymore. Tons of young people joined after Bernie just because he called himself a democratic socialist. That made DSA an incoherent space full of all sorts of self identified left wing activists. The old guard with their outdated anti communism quickly became the minority. Additionally the MLs that radicalized while in DSA were unsurprisingly the ones who actually figured out how to actually run the org. The general membership recognized that and voted a lot of them into leadership positions. They’re actually the ones who wrote this article.
Well that’s kind of the key isn’t it. DSA’s structure is going to be worthless in any sort of revolutionary crisis. However, communists in DSA have access to an audience of underdeveloped but sometimes open minded libs that are willing to listen and learn. They can help convert them into the kinds of organizers with good politics that will be necessary for any future party to succeed.
If you have to defend Nazi’s because the SC will give them a more favorable decision then the legal system is already fucked beyond repair.