still waiting for the explanation as to how 4 tons of explosives randomly just blew up in Bierut for no reason
Mexican food
still waiting for the explanation as to how 4 tons of explosives randomly just blew up in Bierut for no reason
"how does 4 tons of volatile substance explode in a hot humid environment with bad containment practices"
consumed by avarice
Published on ArXiv without peer-review by "independent genetics researcher" with no affiliation, featuring literal computer screenshots for figures.
Great science. 10/10, would recommend publication in Nature.
The whole systemic denial of the possibility of a lab outbreak and the invocations of it being racist were just weird. Oddly enough it took amateur sleuths on Twitter to do the really basic investigative journalism to show US funding directed toward the lab being linked to a figure heavily involved in downplaying the outbreak, people finding out China lied about samples collections in caves, didn't document viruses in their lab, etc. Mainstream media had used this topic as an example of the racism and conspiracy-theorizing of conservatives, and apparently conservative outlets are severely lacking in good investigators.
The most disappointing thing to me in all of this is how quickly people can be convinced to believe or not believe in the plausibility of something based on empathy points. So many people had a logic that was like: "Lab theory = racist/'China virus' = bad. Top scientist says not true = conservatives ignore science = bad. Questioning Fauci = bad." The arguments to push a narrative don't even need to be that great anymore to push an agenda—politicians have people connected by the emotional socket now, by stratifying people according to how they feel about very basic things like differentiated sexualities and right to have a platform.
yes, the gullible sheep people will believe anything fed to them. Confirmation bias, just thing Nazi Germany. People are fucking weak minded.
The virus came from my ASS!
Published on ArXiv without peer-review by "independent genetics researcher" with no affiliation, featuring literal computer screenshots for figures.
Great science. 10/10, would recommend publication in Nature.
And this makes it wrong? you are exactly the problem with science.
Peer review is a total joke. Wake up! When corrupt peers can block true science that does not fit the approved narrative, you get flat earth consensus.
The virus came from my ASS!
And this makes it wrong?
No. However, statistically speaking, if the authors can't get basic things right, like if they use literal computer screenshots as result figures in a paper, chances are they also can't get the more complex stuff right.
It's like if you look at someone posting a paper that claims to have found the solution to the theory of everything but then failing at basic arithmetics, it doesn't raise your confidence levels.
Besides, it's on you to prove it's correct, not on me to prove that it's wrong. Otherwise, I'd have to disprove every crazy claim about flat earths and what-not.
Explain why the paper is correct, instead of sitting there going "you cant show its wrong so it must be right."
you are exactly the problem with science.
Why?
Peer review is a total joke.
Why?
When corrupt peers can block true science that does not fit the approved narrative, you get flat earth consensus.
Give an example where we both agree something is right or true which was blocked by corrupt peers, and then show that it's not a cherry-picked example but statistically significant.
And this makes it wrong?
No. However, statistically speaking, if the authors can't get basic things right, like if they use literal computer screenshots as result figures in a paper, chances are they also can't get the more complex stuff right.
It's like if you look at someone posting a paper that claims to have found the solution to the theory of everything but then failing at basic arithmetics, it doesn't raise your confidence levels.
Besides, it's on you to prove it's correct, not on me to prove that it's wrong. Otherwise, I'd have to disprove every crazy claim about flat earths and what-not.
Explain why the paper is correct, instead of sitting there going "you cant show its wrong so it must be right."
you are exactly the problem with science.
Why?
Peer review is a total joke.
Why?
When corrupt peers can block true science that does not fit the approved narrative, you get flat earth consensus.
Give an example where we both agree something is right or true which was blocked by corrupt peers, and then show that it's not a cherry-picked example but statistically significant.
You should look closer at their names. Some of these scientist are inside China and in fear of their lives. Whistle blowers. Some are inside Socialistic Canada. Some have defected into the US and are in protection programs. I think screen shots are all they have to deal with considering their security risk inside China.
And their motives for writing?
CCP scientists gets caught with elaborate power point presentation and scientific documents. Not too smart.
The virus came from my ASS!
And this makes it wrong?
No. However, statistically speaking, if the authors can't get basic things right, like if they use literal computer screenshots as result figures in a paper, chances are they also can't get the more complex stuff right.
It's like if you look at someone posting a paper that claims to have found the solution to the theory of everything but then failing at basic arithmetics, it doesn't raise your confidence levels.
Besides, it's on you to prove it's correct, not on me to prove that it's wrong. Otherwise, I'd have to disprove every crazy claim about flat earths and what-not.
Explain why the paper is correct, instead of sitting there going "you cant show its wrong so it must be right."
you are exactly the problem with science.
Why?
Peer review is a total joke.
Why?
When corrupt peers can block true science that does not fit the approved narrative, you get flat earth consensus.
Give an example where we both agree something is right or true which was blocked by corrupt peers, and then show that it's not a cherry-picked example but statistically significant.
Did you even read the paper and understand the science? This is typical failed argument style pointing out spelling errors and bad screen shots not even understanding the science.
You should at least pick apart one of the theories.
The virus came from my ASS!
In this study we document the unexpected discovery of multiple coronaviruses and a BSL-3 pathogen in agricultural cotton and rice sequencing datasets. In particular, we have identified a novel HKU5-related Merbecovirus in a cotton dataset sequenced by the Huazhong Agricultural University in 2017. We have also found an infectious clone sequence containing a novel HKU4-related Merbecovirus related to MERS coronavirus in a rice dataset sequenced by the Huazhong Agricultural University in early 2020. Another HKU5-related Merbecovirus, as well as Japanese encephalitis virus, were identified in a cotton dataset sequenced by the Huazhong Agricultural University in 2018. An HKU3-related Betacoronavirus was found in a Mus musculus sequencing dataset from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2017. Finally, a SARS-WIV1-like Betacoronavirus was found in a rice dataset sequenced by the Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University in 2017. Using the contaminating reads we have extracted from the above datasets, we were able to assemble complete genomes of two novel coronaviruses which we disclose herein. In light of our findings, we raise concerns about biosafety protocol breaches, as indicated by our discovery of multiple dangerous human pathogens in agricultural sequencing laboratories in Wuhan and Fouzou City, China.
This is public data sets that can be third party verified. And you are worried about screen shots and format? Wake up!
The virus came from my ASS!
We have found evidence of bats in the area near Wuhan carrying a close relative of COV-SARS-2 virus. The evidence comes from sequencing the data collected from horseshoe bats and conclusively points towards a zoonotic origin of the SARS-Cov-2 virus.
Here is the sequencing:
Published by me, an independent detective scientist.
Now let me use your argument: Prove me wrong. If you fail to prove me wrong, it must mean I'm right.
last edit on
6/9/2021 10:24:49 PM