Here we go again.
Did you bother looking for the earliest cases China is withholding data on? Do that first before asking me to confirm your misstated data.
No, I did not "bother looking for the earliest cases China is withholding data on", because any cases for which China is withholding data are irrelevant to anything I've been saying in this thread during the past few weeks. I note also that I have not asked
Skeptic Ginger to confirm my "misstated data".
It seems therefore that
Skeptic Ginger is quite confused concerning just about everything I have written in this thread in recent weeks.
And BTW, half of the 155 cases on Worobey's map had no connection to the market. 20 identified cases were left out altogether.
I asked you a question you have not answered, and appear to be going to great lengths not to answer. I will now break that question down into a series of simpler questions:
1. When you say "Worobey's map", which of Worobey's maps are you talking about? (In my original statement of this question, I suggested you might be talking about the map in Worobey's Figure 1A, but that was just a guess. Skeptic Ginger has neither confirmed nor negated that guess.)
2. What are the "20 identified cases" that "were left out altogether"? (For the record, I note that any such cases are not relevant to anything I have written in this thread in recent weeks.)
3. Where can I find the locations of those "20 identified cases"? (Just so I satisfy my own curiosity by adding their locations to the map Skeptic Ginger will identify by answering question 1 above, if she ever gets around to answering that question.)
Notice also how a map of the proximity to the labs of the CCDC were not analyzed despite these 2 labs being very close to the market and despite one CCDC lab being moved to the other location just as the pandemic started. And NO I will not cite a source for this again. Look it up.
The location of those labs is not secret. Anyone who thinks this is an issue is free to draw in the location of those labs and to do their own analysis.
In particular, anyone with the requisite background in statistics could perform that analysis using the data in Worobey's Supplementary Materials combined with the location data
Skeptic Ginger could provide for the "20 identified cases" (but has not provided, and is probably unwilling to provide: "And NO I will not cite a source").
I said Biden's comments were older but the article itself had been updated.
On 28 August 2023, Skeptic Ginger said the article had been updated "yesterday". According to the web page she cited, the article was last updated on 28 August 2021.
Skeptic Ginger was off by two years. As seen from the quotation above, she still has not admitted her claim that the article had been updated "yesterday" was off by two years.
This is of course a trivial matter, but her obstinacy concerning this trivial matter illustrates a pattern of stubborn detachment from reality that runs throughout many of her recent posts.
For example:
You said:
Those data were not missing from Worobey et al.'s paper. They were missing from the paper's supplemental materials.
That error has been corrected. It is therefore possible to compare
Worobey's actual dataset to the two datasets that Lisewski decided to substitute for that dataset (which are
here and
here).
That does not address China withholding information on the earliest cases. You claim that missing data was provided.
You are wrong, deal with it.
None of my recent posts have said anything at all about "China withholding information on the earliest cases", because any such withholding of data is irrelevant to anything I've been saying in my recent posts.
In particular, my only "claim that missing data was provided" involved the fact (not just a claim) that Worobey
et al. had updated their Supplementary Materials to include a dataset that had been missing due to a copy/paste error. The data in that dataset could not have had anything to do with "China withholding information on the earliest cases", because any data that were unavailable because of such withholding could not possibly have been included within the dataset provided (belatedly) by Worobey
et al.
Concerning
Skeptic Ginger's responses to my posts, as quoted above, I have to agree with
angrysoba:
Dude, this again is the very definition of gaslighting and you have done this already with the whole cable thing.
Now you are doing it again.
Do you not see something extremely obnoxious about these games of yours?
Despite the devoted efforts of many people, we still do not have solid evidence that would allow us to rule out either zoonosis or a lab leak. In my opinion, the most persuasive argument for zoonosis remains the Bayesian prior: Zoonosis is the origin of most pandemics, and there is no persuasive evidence for any alternative to zoonosis.
I will say, however, that (in my opinion) the lab leak theories deserve more serious advocacy than
Skeptic Ginger has been providing.