The second iteration of the $1,000,000 vaccine debate has been submitted! Here is our submission (scroll down to "Second Iteration")

@_everythingism @3corch3 @nizzaneela @Ayjchan @slatestarcodex Yes. Please. BTW Ghouta, not Douma.

@AustinNxPodcast @JPScoopZ @stkirsch 1) even money. 2) yes

@AustinNxPodcast @JPScoopZ @stkirsch We interviewed many prospects and agreed on two very capable scientists.

@PiersUncensored @piersmorgan @georgegalloway In the full show you claim the Ghouta chemical attack was launched by Assad. The attached investigation has shown this to be wrong. We are still offering $100,000 to anyone who can win a debate with neutral judges on this issue.

@PiersUncensored @piersmorgan Despite what you say here, it is now known that the chemical attacks in Syria were launched by the opposition, not the government. See the investigation attached. We are offering $100,000 to anyone who can win a debate with neutral judges on this issue.

@JustXAshton @AdarWeinreb @hodgetwins @elonmusk You may find the terms here We need to agree on two judges, who need to determine which of the two hypotheses is more likely: 1. Pilot suicide. 2. Alien abduction. At least $100,000 placed by each side. Let us know if you're interested. Good luck!

Rootclaim is thrilled to announce the world's first $1 million debate on a pivotal question: Did the COVID mRNA vaccines save more lives than they killed? Our opponent, Mr. Steven Kirsch—a prominent vaccine critic—asserts that these vaccines saved few, if any, lives and caused millions of deaths globally. While we disagree with his conclusions, we commend Mr. Kirsch for taking a personal risk and attempting to back his public statements on this important issue. Debate Details: • After two years of negotiations, the agreement was signed, including the identities of the two judges. • One million dollars have been deposited in escrow, and there is no going back. • The debate will be in writing and video, starting before year's end. • Texts will be shared publicly to allow anyone to weigh in, ensuring both sides present their best case. • Videos will be released after the winner is declared to preserve the judges' anonymity. We invite experts with relevant knowledge to contribute. Please comment or contact us if you'd like to assist, or tag others who might be interested.

New blog post - Rootclaim's response to Scott Alexander's review of our COVID origins debate

@abhishek_s_1 @tlitb @LinchZhang @ESYudkowsky There were several challenges in translating Bayesian analysis into a debate format, which we believe contributed to our defeat. As outlined in our blog post, future debates will be structured differently.

Except no one was able to show anything remotely similar ever done by natural evolution. In the last session, Peter brought up a new claim about HKU1 having a similar insertion, which we didn't have an opportunity to properly respond to (probably why this looked strong to you). His claim is wrong on many levels, but the fastest way to see it is to look at these alignments of SARS2 and HKU1 to their respective closest relatives. And this is, mind you, the closest example zoonosis proponents can produce.

@tracewoodgrains @tgof137 Sure, and we paid the money. Our failure to convince people doesn't change math. Our analysis of the evidence still points to lab-leak. We update our conclusions when people point out flaws (which no one did), not just because it is perceived as noble.

We have no problem updating probabilities. That's what we do. In this case there was a clear mistake in assessing the evidence (which was our fault for not explaining). We provided a clear explanation of the mistake after the debate, and no one was able to point to a flaw in it. We updated our analysis with all the new evidence, some of it strengthened zoonosis and some of it lab-leak. Overall lab-leak came out stronger, so that's what we reported. Humility is irrelevant in such a process. Only the numbers matter.

@viewfromthebut1 A video was not planned. Our position is summarized in this post, and we will gladly do another debate on the issue if anyone is willing to apply.

@cotterca1 @tgof137 Apologies. We had some issues with our comments system. We responded now.

@Ben_Kuebrich @Biorealism @quay_dr @ban_epp_gofroc How would you explain it better?

@rho_my_god @quay_dr Why do you think these are insertions and not deletions?

@rho_my_god @quay_dr The insert itself is not enough. It's that it happens to code for the critical feature WIV was interested in introducing.