Did COVID come from a lab? Matt Ridley vs. Stephen Goldstein
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- Author Matt Ridley debates virologist Stephen Goldstein on the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
-------------
Best-selling science and technology author Matt Ridley and University of Utah virologist Stephen Goldstein debate the resolution: "It is likely that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan laboratory in China."
Defending the resolution is Ridley, the author of 10 books, including Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19. He sat in the U.K.'s House of Lords between 2013 and 2021 and served on the Science and Technology Select Committee. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, a fellow at the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a foreign honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Arguing against the resolution is Goldstein, a virologist at the University of Utah conducting research on human genetics. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, where he conducted research on the biology of MERS-CoV, a zoonotic virus first identified in 2012. Over the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, Goldstein has engaged with the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, University of Utah Health, and local and national media to provide scientific expertise. He has co-authored reviews and original research papers on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
The debate is moderated by the Soho Forum's Chief Operating Officer Jane Menton.
I was just at this debate. Both debaters showed refreshing levels of respect for each other, while strongly disagreeing on some points. They also routinely conceded true points that the other said. Obviously, lab leak won by a huge margin.
*truth won
@@matthewk2388 They are making chaemera(modified) CORONAVIRUS that is designed to infect mice with HUMANIZED lung cells in the lab. I dunno what else these people are looking for.
@@matthewk2388 The lab was modifying coronavirus to be more infectious to humanized lung cells of a mice. What else are they looking for?
This infected millions of people. How many millions of civet or pangolin got infected?
@@matthewk2388 WTF. CZcams deleting my comment????
YT still don't want the truth.
@@matthewk2388 This virus got millions of people. How many hundreds of civet or pangolin did in infect?
Crazy that NOW we can have this discussion in public
Especially since the genetic data is out there.
Yeah, took a while.
Yes, and too bad for those who lied about it from the beginning...
Testing 123.
Why is YT still deleting so many comments?
I’m confused as to how this even worthy of a debate at this point.
While I agree with you in one sense, people keeping pushing Zoonotic spillover in spite of the data. And MSNM pushed spill over for such a very long time ... sometimes even now. Goldstein's explanation for the furin cleavage site was entirely in adequate IMHO. No wonder it was difficult to find anyone to debate Ridley.
That's odd, he who only knows his side of an argument knows little of that.
I count myself lucky that a real scientist finally decided to defend the natural origin hypothesis in a public debate instead of just dismissing or name calling.
Agree - the evidence is strongly in favour of natural origin.
@@strphenzCOVID-19 & mRNA vaccines are US Military BI0WEAP0NS.
@strphenz you sound just like the op lol. You make a claim and think it is an argument.
Short answer: YES!
Long answer: obviously
Shorter answer: It was made in Fort Detricks biolab and leaked by accident/spread by US army athletes during the 2019 sport event in Wuhan.
Good debate, though I think there is even more that can be said favoring Lab Leak, though time was limited. Consider the following important background information (not widely reported) from Dr. Robert Redfield who was head of the CDC at the time of the outbreak.
Redfield said
Did you also read the paper by Khan Sayed? That paper made me laugh. His humour in saying this quote still makes me laugh.
"In theory nothing is impossible in science, medicine or genomics. A SARS virus emerging naturally with 3 HIV inserts at its binding sites and also containing a furin cleavage site that doesn’t exist in nature but does exist in a Moderna patent… that’s seriously crazy talk. It doesn’t exist. A flying pink elephant would be a million times more likely."
@@digdeepfortruth7193 SARS1 spread in animals first, before it learned to infect humans. SAR2 infected millions on the get go.
@@digdeepfortruth7193 Mice with humanized lung cells, as I remember reading from the article. Not humanized skin or ears, but lungs.
@@digdeepfortruth7193 Agree. SARS1 spread in animals first. Not the other way around.
@@digdeepfortruth7193 Guess which organ SARS2 attacks?
The issue with Goldsteins last point shortly before the 1hr mark stating that a lot of early cases in the hospital had connections to the marked is that a market is a natural meeting place and thus a natural place of spread, even after an outbreak elsewhere would have occured.
Agree. Market is a non-issue. They didn't "find" anything in the market. They didn't "find" anything in the lab.
But the lab is doing gain of function experiments of coronavirus to be be more infectious to mice with humanized lung cells. They have a published article on that. That is a very specific experiment. If it was a a rotovirus or a cat lung cell, yeah ok maybe not.
What is special in the market? It sells different animals. But they found nothing. So what now?
Prior to that, Riley even noted that such an argument is circular. That didn't stop Goldstein from repeating it
@@InfoSopher What happened to the other comments?
it is sad people are still so blind, that is the real pandemic.
Yes. You don't have to spend 100 minutes.
I can’t believe Gigi Gronvall the biodefense shill made the trip just to get into the audience Q&A!!! 😂
and angie rasmussen lol
Which conclusion does the virology community have every reason/motivation to arrive at? Meanwhile everyone else knew within 6 months because they have eyes and common sense, which many of these “experts” have shown themselves to be lacking over the last 4 years.
bingo.
Not to forget intuition. My gut told me immediately the whole thing was fraught with lies.
@@MeRia035 I agree completely. I had the same feeling when looking at the Proximal Origin "paper". Turns out it was NOT a scientific paper, but an opinion piece! Plus very premature for making such strong statements. Now we know from FOIA requests that the authors didn't even believe it themselves.
@@digdeepfortruth7193 the authors were also using the arguments of one undisclosed contributor, ron fouchier (who made airborne transmission of H5N1 through gain-of-function experiments).
@@gurpchirp Oh wow! I heard of the H5N1 work, but didn't know the connection with Ron Fouchier and Proximal Origins piece. I think that is so ill-advised - Evidently much higher fatality rate for H5N1 than Covid-19. It sounds odd to say we were lucky after 20-28 million people died, but it could have been so much worse if had been a virus with higher fatality rate. Who are these rogues that want free reign to put the entire world at enormous risk, with little transparency and oversight? That's no way to make friends and influence people. Then to try pulling the wool over everybody's eyes and hope we can't figure things out. At least Goldstein acknowledged there needs to be greater precautions taken with dangerous pathogens, that much gets some respect.
“It might look like a conflict but it’s not…you can trust me”
The fact that this guy like so many experts refuses to acknowledge the obvious ethical problems with Proximal Origins really undermines what was otherwise a good debate.
ask HRC, she was worried about it as Obama's head of state dept. her amnesiac silence on the subject later tells me everything i need to know.
no need to scrub a truth that doesn't implicate anyone.
Goldstein was smugly respectful.
And made easily disprovable claims.
Sone people said they got it from those animal sellers.
Case closed! $cience!
Next month’s debate - is the pope a Catholic?
Well... these days that is actually a fairly legitimate question.
You mean I gave up eating civets for nothing
Never forget the hysteria...or the timing.
Yes, well probably anyway. All evidence indicates that it is by far the highest likelihood, no evidence to the contrary other then “well the government originally said it didn’t except in their internal documents they always knew it was the case”, so what exactly is the debate?
This question stopped being relevant and interesting about 4 years ago when anyone with more than ten brain cells who wasn't in a coma had already arrived at the extremely obvious answer.
An opinion: it is good to point out the truth and to ask for the responsible to be held accountable, as they have not been so far
@@fadedflage you think they're going to be? lol. Not with either grandpa Joe or "bring the light into the body" Donny in office.
The world seriously needs to do better next time. Good enough reason to keep discussing it as the hysteria recedes.
Do we really need to to ask this question? It's obvious that it was.
It's a debate, why are you so dumb
The answer is yes.
Matt is a gem among thinkers.
He is a brexit lunatic whose only expertise on this is that he knew 30 years ago how pheasants fuck. Are you serious?
Even if it escapes from a lab, that’s a separate question from whether it originates there. People have discussed plenty of evidence that research was indeed going on there and we need ongoing efforts to aggregate the best information. Yes it is good that we are increasingly allowed to discuss this history now.
Ridley clearly argued for the virus being a result of gain of function research, and then leaking from the lab. He presented zero evidence for either of these.
WTF are they even debating at this point
My thoughts exactly. The only debate we should have is:
1) Leaked by pure accident
2) The country leaked it and the rest of the world just took advantage of it (don't forget what was going on in the origin country at the time)
3) The world leaders purposefully did it to grab more power.
To keep a shred of doubt for the fools that went along with everything.
Because debate was not allowed when it should have been.
Because Fort Detrick biolab accident was covered
@noahweikert9367 are you ok. What's your point please?
Goldstein is a very compelling speaker but what he's saying is very deceptive
Disingenuously so!
This would have been relevant 4 years ago.
why are Fauci and his cronies not in jail???
Yes. Yes it did
Amazing that Goldstein is doing this debate without no other arguments that a lab leak is not sure...
25:00 when you are supposed to “believe the Chinese government”🤔as a scientist when do you suspend skepticism without investigation, I did not appreciate that statement
YES!!!
Yes. It was from the laboratory.
It's worth pointing out that the market was where a lot of the people in the lab had lunch
Debate is too short, and we need more questions answered with more experts.
The only argument for natural origens is that it is really inconvinient that it came from the lab
Stephen’s body language would suggest that he is deeply conflicted about the obvious.
his last name gives it away.
@@tann_man Way to show your entire ass.
Such an honor to watch in person!
Omg. This was devastating for Stephen. What was he thinking? Why would he agree to this??
self-delusion noun self-de·lu·sion ˌself-di-ˈlü-zhən -dē- plural self-delusions 1 : the act of deluding oneself or the state of being deluded by oneself especially concerning one's true nature, abilities, feelings, etc.
@@johnlorenzini3679 Stephen is the scientist right? Why is he forcing the market angle when they didn't "find" anything there. They didn't "find" anything in the lab too. It's just that they are experimenting the exact thing there.
@@CZcamsWatcher264 Ergo, scientists unfortunately are human, and will on occasion delude themselves into concocting & believing all manner of 'narratives' which help support themselves or to further their preferred 'world view'.
How was it devestating? Ridley presented not a single piece of evidence in support of the lab leak. And showed misunderstanding of the science over and over. And when he did understand the science, he misrepresented it. While Goldstein clearly laid out the biggest reasons why every expert believes it is very likely to be a wet market spillover. The only bad thing Goldstein did, and why he lost the debate, is that he showed too much respect for Ridley. He assumed Ridley debates in good faith. He should have ripped Ridley to shreds. Both his argument, as well as his integrity, and his expertise.
how did ridley show a "misunderstanding of the science"?
you guys talk about 'science' in the most anti-scientific way possible.
a modded sarbecovirus was found next to a lab with plans to mod sarbecoviruses. everyone involved was caught lying.
no amount of lipstick you put on your raccoon dog is going to help you through that.
Yes. See that took one second. You wasted almost two hours.
No time was wasted. Inportant to hear both sides to the story.
@@ManicMindTrick There is no other side. It’s a false equivalency. The wet market hypothesis was never under serious consideration in the real scientific community (as is now public). It was always just a political smoke screen. It’s like having a debate between Darwinian evolution and creationism. One side has all the evidence, and the other just has wishful thinking. But in both cases, they are not even in the same league. At best, pro sports versus elementary school. Not something we should even bother with.
@@NOYFB982 I think part of the problem is the political smoke screeners are in control so there won't be any legal accountability until that changes.
@@NOYFB982you're a 🤡🤡🤡
Great debate and even had cameos at the end by notable celebrities of the debate like Gigi Gronvall and what's her face Rasmussen, and even Bryce Nichols confronting Stephen Goldstein for referencing the infamous Proximal Origins letter and later papers by the same authors.
This was great, I feel like I learned a lot!
I find this debate interesting, however, I'd like to watch a debate between those in favour of the erradication strategy (lockdowns, mask mandates) vs the foccused protection strategy (isolating individuals in high risk groups only).
Old news people, everyone knew this 3 years ago. Talk about something more current.
I see multiple comments like this on origins topics implying to not talk about it anymore. The history books are still written that this was most likely a natural spillover. The worlds most dangerous profession covers up it's accidents. Nothing to see here move on!
@@ideapowerfulweaponvery good point.
15% of people in the audience thought it came from a bat still? omg...
51:50 That middle finger though.
Duh! The science is settled…
No
"They were acutely interested in cleavage" - yup me too, and I know nothing about virology.
So the audience was favorably biased from the start towards the lableak. And they gained 3%, not 13% as the moderator says:
- 51 + 3 = 54% for the YES
- 15 - 3 = 12% for the NO
With one out of three (34%) still undecided.
Have to be undecided. All the arguments are downstream from Drostens arbitrary pcr protocol.
Was ANYONE surprised that Goldstein was arguing the opposing side😂
4 years later, everyone's moved on and figured it out already this is silly
In a way, very much so. However some news media still clings to and even promotes the animal spill over theory. That much is not silly.
Many claimed the truth was shut down back then tho.
Move on when they admit It was a lab leak!! Until then they get away with It. Millions are dead, how can you move on?
@@digdeepfortruth7193 The animal spillover that didn't spill. Otherwise we'd have thousands of animals infected.
Yes
Cv19 passed through Laos, Vietnam, and onto Thailand in early Sept 2019.
Please cite a credible source or reference to help substantiate your extraordinary claim; I'm willing to bet you can't/won't!
“Goldstein”, it’s always the same people isn’t it
All downstream evidence
Did we know at what tissue temperature did SARS COV2 better infect cells?
Why ?
Because german virologist Christian Drosten indicate that to replicate SARS COV2 in different tissues must decrease incubator temperature to 34C -35C.( at TWiV 659 at min29)
Even SARS COV2 ,, temperature sensitivity,,can vanish after retromutation and recombinations, If virus circulate and spread more, must avoid to decrease mucoseal respiratory temperature.
Even surgical mask wearing maintain higher mucoseal respiratory temperature,and protect against Covid19
Maybe higher mucouseal respiratory temperature protect against Covid19 ?
But If thermogenesis was weakened by different causes? how can maintain higher mucouseal respiratory temperature?
Maybe mask wearing not only stop droplets, but also maintain higher mucouseal respiratory temperature ?
Theoretically higher mucoseal respiratory temperature protect against Covid19 ?
And how can maintain higher mucoseal respiratory temperature, If air temperature decrease,and If thermogenesis is weakened by different causes ?
Maybe even mask wearing maintain higher mucoseal respiratory temperature ?
Lab. or nature emerging,
how can prevent Covid19 ?
Maybe surgical mask wearing by maintaining higher mucoseal respiratory temperature, protect against Covid19.
Science is your new GOD
51:53
If that guy stops "tsss"-king and smacking his lips all the time maybe I would listen to him. Jeeeesus, have you not talk in front of people ever before?
Huh...
Yes, 是, да
Ridley repeatedly claims that the specialists in the area are not interested in doing good research on this question while ignoring those that are and have done the work...of course, many of those, like Goldstein, have concluded that animal transmission is more likely.
what animal?
If the virologists are not interested in doing 'good research' then how come a handful of Chinese scientists in complete secret were able to do gain of function research so humongous successful that they basically created a virus that could infect most mammals extremely well, all from a vaguely related bat virus? And all without leaving any evidence? And all so successful that not only did this immediately create the biggest pandemic in modern times, but it has also stumped all other virologists in the world for 4 years.
Lol this guy trying to coverup so desperately you can smell the money in his bank account.
I can see your 1 digit IQ in your comment
No because ^^^
I definitely learned something from both presenters. I think Goldstein did the better job actually of improving my opinion of his point of view. I'd say I was leaning 70-30 in the direction of lab leak before watching this. After, I'm still inclined to believe the lab leak seems more likely, but I'm more in 60-40 territory.
LOL.
Ridley gave not a single argument for lab leak. All he said was things like: 'isn't it odd' and 'I am just asking questions' and 'why Trust the Chinese government' and 'I would like evidence piece X for animal market spillover, even though I know this evidence can't exist'. That's not evidence for anything.
You guys should really start putting "SOHO Forum Debate" back in the title of these videos. It is never explicitly obvious any more from the title or thumbnail that these videos are SOHO Forum, Oxford style debates.
MurdeRNA
Lab leak is a rhetorically easier argument to make. Just list coincidences and paint all research and scientists that go against lab leak as incompetent or bad because some screwed up earlier.
Ridley made not a single scientific argument in support of lab leak. Yet he 'won' the debate.
@@Prometheus4096 Statistics and probability aren't scientific?
@@GaryVolts Not when applied in humanities. They are scientific methods. But humanities aren't science. They have no laws. You cannot make a model of reality in the humanities that makes useful and testable predictions, like you can in natural sciences. Therefore, humanities are not science. But they can try to use the scientific method. And it can be useful or interesting or insightful. But one should be aware of the severe limitations of the scientific method inside humanities.
@@Prometheus4096 Please point to one conclusion in favor of his HSM spillover narrative which Goldstein's argument rested upon that was based on actual "scientific" evidence; it was all 'circumstantial'. He failed to cite any evidence indicating there was a documented infection of SARS-CoV-2 involving at least 1 animal out of hundreds present monthly encompassing the 18 mammalian wildlife species that were sold at HSM (and other Wuhan wet markets) during the last 3-6 months of 2019. Goldstein also failed to make a credible argument to explain how the SARS-CoV-2 virus (or a close 'kin') made its way to Wuhan from the nearest known occurrences of virus which most closely resemble it. FYI, they didn't travel to Wuhan via a bat, as concluded by the authors of at least 3 scientific papers!
Covid came from a computer algorithm. That is all it is.
Don't give people ideas how to create a virus
@@Xamufam prra cgg cgg
@@onegreenev Nah this is more like a trial and error thing. Otherwise we'd had this earlier.
@@CZcamsWatcher264 They already did the trial and errors then implemented this across the globe to see how the people would react. The majority of the people reacted exactly as they had hoped. They rolled over and let them have full control of a false narrative and it has had serious impacts on our economy and many of them became very wealthy in the process. Follow the money. Its all about money. You are the product. They have control and they know next time you will roll over. People continue to roll over even for a simple thing as gasoline. They raise the price, everyone bitches, they continue to pay and they raise it again and again and again. It may hurt a bit but if everyone stopped using electricity, gas, natural gas and such for just a week they would bring down the prices to what we were paying in the 60’s. The only way to change is to force the change by non compliance. It is worth loosing your job if that need be the case. There are plenty of jobs available. So make it hurt, make it sting in their pockets, not yours.
His last name is GOLDSTEIN?? opinion ignored.
Nazi spotted!
Stephen was great, of course, the debate reflects the same old challenges when a scientist debates a science denier in front of an audience full of true believers. Lots of useless and irrelevant innuendo on Matt's side, and lots of facts on the other.
to the onlooker who is unfamiliar with this 'protagonist science' guy: his name is philipp (pip) markolin. he was recently trying to flex in an argument with a NYT journalist on twitter by posting photos of himself sampling bats in thailand (as if this was going to impress the journalist). pip then immediately deleted his post because the photos accidentally revealed that his thailand trip was paid for by peter daszak. pip is one of the last people still actively propagandizing for these crooks and will often write ridiculous comments like the one above where he'll project his own cultish tendencies onto normies (like calling you a "true believer").
I am a scientist, maybe you are too, you hear innuendos on Matt Ridley's side, I hear only facts (except the definitive ones, of course, which were never, and could never be looked for, for the reasons Matt Ridley congently reminds us). The only true mystery remaining in this story is the mental functionning of people who still deny the glaring plausibilty of a lab leak and keep insulting ("science deniers", "true believers") those who ask perfectly cogent questions. I wonder whether, when the dust settles, someone will write the history of this cognitive bubble. Or maybe it will seem too boring by then.
@@gurpchirp Ah OK. Thank you for the context. Otherwise it was baffling.
Duhhhhhh 🤡🌎
Yes