- Oct 2024
-
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
-
Over time, it devolved into a claim that the virus originated in experiments to enhance the infectivity of microbes being studied in the lab (so-called gain-of-function experiments) — and ultimately to the proposition that researchers at the institute unwittingly became infected while doing fieldwork and carried the virus into the institute, from which it escaped through inattention.
Different people were advocating for these different theories from the start. The thing that evolved was just the average credence for each theory. This also suggests Hiltzik did not read the book, as infection while doing fieldwork is only one of the possible vectors. Another major one is infection in the lab (which, as the authors explain, happened before at WIV with less-deadly coronaviruses).
-
groundless theory
Another instance of Hiltzik simply asserting his thesis, which he has come nowhere close to proving in his rhetoric-filled page-and-a-half review.
-
Instead, what Chan and Ridley have done is place a conspiracy theory between hardcovers to masquerade as sober scientific inquiry.
assertion of thesis. empty rhetoric.
-
Contrary to the curiosity-piquing subtitle, the authors don’t tell us much that is illuminating about how virologists actually search for the origins of new viruses. They don’t appear to have spent much time, if any, watching experts at work in the lab. At least that might have been interesting as an explication of scientific methods.
The subtitle is The Search for the Origin of COVID-19, not The Search for the Origin of Viruses. It would be a pointless charade to observe virology experts at work in the lab, given that the authors have already summarized their findings in great detail with thorough citations -- none of which Hiltzik disputes.
-
Experts in those fields know that the critical links, the original animal source and the intermediate species that may have been the direct transmitter to humans, may never be identified; similar inquiries have taken years, and some have never reached a conclusion.
By not acknowledging that the authors discussed at great length the history of such inquiries, Hiltzik leads the reader to believe that the authors excluded this pertitent background information.
-
Spoiler alert: Near the end of their book, Chan and Ridley acknowledge that they have conducted a wild goose chase. “The reader may want to know what the authors of this book think happened,” they write. “Of course, we do not know for sure. ... We have tried to lay out the evidence and follow it wherever it leads, but it has not led us to a definite conclusion.” After 400-odd pages of argument, learning that the authors don’t even emerge with the courage of their own convictions may leave readers feeling cheated.
Hiltzik is clearly suggesting that readers should feel cheated here. A wild goose chase is a complicated, hopeless pursuit. But the authors never promised they would solve the mystery of the origin of COVID-19. Their thesis, quite clearly from the start, is that an entire broad category of theories --zoonotic origin theories with no virology lab intermediary-- is highly implausible. That is what they argued. In comparison, when a defense lawyer proves their client is innocent of a murder, it is not logical or fair to expect them to go further and prove the guilt of the true murderer, and indeed no justice system in the world demands as much. That being said, the authors of Viral do go further; they argue that the virus or a near ancestor leaked from one of the two Wuhan Virology Institute locations in Wuhan. They also explained why the CCP's (undisputed) withholding of data blocks the investigating process from narrowing in on a detailed narrative of exactly how the leak happened.
-
- Mar 2016
-
www.ontariocourts.ca www.ontariocourts.ca
-
Each complainant in this case engaged in conduct regarding Mr. Ghomeshi,after the fact, whichseems out of harmony with the assaultive behaviour ascribed to him. In many instances, their conduct and comments were eveninconsistent with the level of animusexhibited by each of them, both at the time and then years later.
These sentences betray the judge's ignorance of the well-documented, surprisingly-common counterintuitive (at least to men like he and I) behaviour of survivors of assault.
-
The expression proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" has no precise definition, but it is well understood.
How can an expression have no precise meaning but be well understood?
-
Some lack of precisionisto be expected in any report of conduct from over a decade earlier. However, it is reasonable to expect that a true account of significant events will not varytoo dramatically from time to time in the telling. The standard of proof in a criminal case requires sufficient clarity in the evidence to allow a confident acceptance of the essential facts. This portion of S.D.’sevidence at trial illustrates my concernon this last point:
This statement, and the quote from trial following it, demonstrates a probably-innocent but problematic bias of the judge: that a witness, while attempting to describe an event whose details she openly admits are not recorded clearly in her mind, will use language that consistently expresses her uncertainty. That could perhaps be expected of a judge, a lawyer, or a scientist. What is more likely here, is that S.D. is expressing her uncertainty by giving multiple versions of the minor, inconsequential details. That is not at all uncommon.
What should be taken from the quoted evidence is this:
S.D. claims to remember the following: Ghomeshi moved his hands from one part of her body (shoulders, arms) to around her neck, which caused her difficulty breathing, for some amount of time in the range of 2-10 seconds. At some point during that event, she believes she felt his teeth on her skin. At some point during the event, she believes he had his hand over her mouth. She is uncertain whether she resisted.
-
She is either watching him, or watching his show.
Incorrect: she is either watching him, or watching his show, or lying. The third case is not dismissible, and in fact might be the most likely case if L.R. is too traumatized to watch Mr. Ghomeshi's show but wishes to convey to Ghomeshi otherwise.
-
This is not an email that L.R. could have simply forgotten about
This statement is far outside the Judge's expertise, and its certainty betrays a worrisome bias. Even an expert in the psychology of memory could not make such a strong statement.
Fixed: This is not an email that I can imagine a person having simply forgotten about.
-
Thisis not an email that she could have simply forgotten about.
I will repeat the previous criticism:
This statement is far outside the Judge's expertise, and its certainty betrays a worrisome bias. Even an expert in the psychology of memory could not make such a strong statement.
Fixed: This is not an email that I can imagine a person having simply forgotten about.
-
- May 2015
-
www.slate.com www.slate.com
-
and the school district obeyed.
Couldn't find the story anywhere. But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal
-