Low odds...
Response To:
I don't think so, Bruce. ()

David Weaver
..from a pattern recognizer's position, most of what the lancet posts is very accurate and the folks who criticize their one-off emotional reaction (which is what their February solidarity "we're against the conspiracy theorists" article was) wouldn't like to compare rigor with most of the rest of the group.

They still have leadership, like anyone else, and everyone gets a chance to overreact once in a while.

But I think where people delude themselves is coming up with a scenario where the explanation given as the official explanation is first, true, and second absolutely certain to be factually correct.

In this case, the lancet is admitting that they don't have evidence that the source is natural. That doesn't mean the have evidence that it's not. But there are too many very large stakeholders involved to believe that someone is going to come forward and say "you caught us, we did it, here's what we didn't share before, and now you can send over your auditors".

Things will be what they will be, and sometimes you have to be comfortable with saying "when it comes to a contest in who can be 'righter', maybe I ought to give someone else even a tenth of the room that I give myself when I excuse errant suppositions".

The gift of time that we have isn't in the past - it's over. It's the present, and the future will be the present. The past never will be. If we're not solving problems to make the future better for others, or for ourselves so that we can do it for others, there's not a whole lot to gain. But we can walk around in circles ogling the issue, trying to uphold what we want to be (vs. what is) and miss the present and spoil lining up to make the future the best present that it can be.

© 1998 - 2017 by Ellis Walentine. All rights reserved.
No parts of this web site may be reproduced in any form or by
any means without the written permission of the publisher.