Sociopath Community

LookAtMeDaddy said: 

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.

First, I do appreciate you entertaining the subject. At least you are thinking about this and making an effort. unlike the other brain dead sheep people.

Second, you have no data. Show your data. But I have to tell you, anything "discovered" by China after the pandemic is automatically suspect and is in need of third party verification. Bat virus genomes can be synthetically created and faked, there are several documented sources proving lab made chimeric infectious virus creations from a computer program, so third party field verification is necessary. In fact, the Swiss created Sars-Cov-2 from a computer a year ago and bragged about it.

These scientist in the above article are showing the actual data they found. Public information on public databases uploaded by the dumbasses themselves. Are they wrong? Doubt it, there are several thorough scientist in the bunch that have proven very reliable.

Supplementary information and data can be found in Zenodo datasets doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4660981, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4620604, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4399248

Also, you cannot underestimate reverse zoonosis activity of the virus. Remember the mink in the EU? Humans to mink, then back to humans. ie human to bats then back to humans.....The trajectory of this virus can be tracked by the genome, show your data.

LiYang said: 

First, I do appreciate you entertaining the subject.

Hehe, indeed, I am quite the detective scientist, even if I say so myself.

At least you are thinking about this and making an effort. unlike the other brain dead sheep people.

You mean actual scientists who do this for a living? Not like me, a dude who has no clue about the science. Hehe, thanks. I indeed consider myself better than most scientists who are just motivated with sucking CCP dick. Because I have no clue what I'm doing, I think outside of the box, and always arrive at the right conclusion.

Second, you have no data.

Prove that I have no data.

Show your data.

You already saw my data in the form of a figure, did you not? Fine, here is the data I used, uploaded onto the Zenodo as an open-source data release (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3832362); this is the main data and the following are supplementaries: (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3902948)

But I have to tell you, anything "discovered" by China after the pandemic is automatically suspect and is in need of third party verification. Bat virus genomes can be synthetically created and faked, there are several documented sources proving lab made chimeric infectious virus creations from a computer program, so third party field verification is necessary. In fact, the Swiss created Sars-Cov-2 from a computer a year ago and bragged about it.

I'm happy with this condition. My data has been verified by several independent scientists.

These scientist in the above article are showing the actual data they found. Public information on public databases uploaded by the dumbasses themselves. Are they wrong? Doubt it, there are several thorough scientist in the bunch that have proven very reliable.

Supplementary information and data can be found in Zenodo datasets doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4660981, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4620604, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4399248

I have also shared my data.

Also, you cannot underestimate reverse zoonosis activity of the virus. Remember the mink in the EU? Humans to mink, then back to humans. ie human to bats then back to humans.....The trajectory of this virus can be tracked by the genome, show your data.

I already did.

LookAtMeDaddy said: 

LiYang said: 

First, I do appreciate you entertaining the subject.

Hehe, indeed, I am quite the detective scientist, even if I say so myself.

 

At least you are thinking about this and making an effort. unlike the other brain dead sheep people.

You mean actual scientists who do this for a living? Not like me, a dude who has no clue about the science. Hehe, thanks. I indeed consider myself better than most scientists who are just motivated with sucking CCP dick. Because I have no clue what I'm doing, I think outside of the box, and always arrive at the right conclusion.

 

Second, you have no data.

Prove that I have no data.

 

Show your data.

You already saw my data in the form of a figure, did you not? Fine, here is the data I used, uploaded onto the Zenodo as an open-source data release ( https://zenodo.org/record/3832484); this is the main data and the following are supplementaries: (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3902948) (https://zenodo.org/record/4381088) see also (https://zenodo.org/record/3951721) for some additional info.

 

But I have to tell you, anything "discovered" by China after the pandemic is automatically suspect and is in need of third party verification. Bat virus genomes can be synthetically created and faked, there are several documented sources proving lab made chimeric infectious virus creations from a computer program, so third party field verification is necessary. In fact, the Swiss created Sars-Cov-2 from a computer a year ago and bragged about it.

I'm happy with this condition. My data has been verified by several independent scientists.

 

These scientist in the above article are showing the actual data they found. Public information on public databases uploaded by the dumbasses themselves. Are they wrong? Doubt it, there are several thorough scientist in the bunch that have proven very reliable.

Supplementary information and data can be found in Zenodo datasets doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4660981, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4620604, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4399248

I have also shared my data.

 

Also, you cannot underestimate reverse zoonosis activity of the virus. Remember the mink in the EU? Humans to mink, then back to humans. ie human to bats then back to humans.....The trajectory of this virus can be tracked by the genome, show your data.

I already did.

 "always arrive at the right conclusion." Now I know you are ignorant. "always" is a word for the inexperienced.

"My data has been verified by several independent scientists." List please. I will take a look at your data.

"Identification of novel bat coronaviruses sheds light on the evolutionary origins of SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses"

"Although a variety of SARS-CoV-2 related coronaviruses have been identified, the evolutionary origins of this virus remain elusive."

Nothing found, first sentence in the paper, I almost quit reading it.

"However, the low sequence identity in the spike gene, itself clearly the product of a past recombination event, made it a second closest relative of SARS-CoV-2, next to RaTG13, at the genomic scale. Hence, aside from the spike gene, RpYN06 possessed a genomic backbone that is arguably the closest to SARS-CoV-2 identified to date."

No one is arguing that viruses exist with similar traits. That's how they made the chimeric infection virus. China has over 2000 viruses from nature, the best of which they have not shared with the scientific community. Obvious from the above article.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.434390v1.full.pdf

I hope none of your third party scientist are listed in this paper. If they are receiving any money from China they are automatically disqualified due to a conflict of interest.

"My data has been verified by several independent scientists." List please. I will take a look at your data.

Its already listed there in the DOIs, did you not take a look?

doi:10.5281/zenodo.3832362

and the data used in

doi:10.5281/zenodo.3902948

LiYang said: 

Nothing found, first sentence in the paper, I almost quit reading it.

Using your own argument: So it's wrong because you don't understand it?

Prove that my data is wrong.

No one is arguing that viruses exist with similar traits. That's how they made the chimeric infection virus. China has over 2000 viruses from nature, the best of which they have not shared with the scientific community. Obvious from the above article.

Yes but I found a >99% match. Boom, evidence that you are wrong. Did you not inspect the data in doi:10.5281/zenodo.3832362 ?

Prove that the data is wrong.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.434390v1.full.pdf

I hope none of your third party scientist are listed in this paper. If they are receiving any money from China they are automatically disqualified due to a conflict of interest.

Why? Prove that the data is wrong. You said I can't claim that a shitty paper that uses literal computer screenshots for data suggests we shouldnt take it seriously, and that I need to disprove every study you throw my way instead, but you dont need to disprove my studies? You get to just make up an arbitrary standard and then enforce it?

That's dumb.

My data is verified by several independent scientists and the data is widely used. There's no conflict of interest. But even if there was, I could just as well say that your papers are CCP hate and thus disqualified immediately. So how come you get to disqualify studies arbitrarily but I need to disprove your ones?

Let me borrow your argument then: Every one of your studies is CCP hate and thus politically motivated. Find a source that is not china-hate. If the authors encourage policies that go against CCP or have any foreign authors, then they are automatically disqualified. If US or any countries that have conflicts with china funds the research, it is also disqualified.

LookAtMeDaddy said: 

"My data has been verified by several independent scientists." List please. I will take a look at your data.

Its already listed there in the DOIs, did you not take a look?

doi:10.5281/zenodo.3832362

and the data used in

doi:10.5281/zenodo.3902948

 

LiYang said: 

Nothing found, first sentence in the paper, I almost quit reading it.

Using your own argument: So it's wrong because you don't understand it?

Prove that my data is wrong.

 

No one is arguing that viruses exist with similar traits. That's how they made the chimeric infection virus. China has over 2000 viruses from nature, the best of which they have not shared with the scientific community. Obvious from the above article.

Yes but I found a >99% match. Boom, evidence that you are wrong. Did you not inspect the data in doi:10.5281/zenodo.3832362 ?

Prove that the data is wrong.

 

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.434390v1.full.pdf

I hope none of your third party scientist are listed in this paper. If they are receiving any money from China they are automatically disqualified due to a conflict of interest.

Why? Prove that the data is wrong. You said I can't claim that a shitty paper that uses literal computer screenshots for data suggests we shouldnt take it seriously, and that I need to disprove every study you throw my way instead, but you dont need to disprove my studies? You get to just make up an arbitrary standard and then enforce it?

That's dumb.

My data is verified by several independent scientists and the data is widely used. There's no conflict of interest. But even if there was, I could just as well say that your papers are CCP hate and thus disqualified immediately. So how come you get to disqualify studies arbitrarily but I need to disprove your ones?

Let me borrow your argument then: Every one of your studies is CCP hate and thus politically motivated. Find a source that is not china-hate. If the authors encourage policies that go against CCP or have any foreign authors, then they are automatically disqualified. If US or any countries that have conflicts with china funds the research, it is also disqualified.

 "My data is verified by several independent scientists and the data is widely used." lies, what are the names?

When I was in Hong Kong they refused to close borders with Mainland, there were rumors of allowing the virus to spread in order to stop the protests, CCP is vile lmao

Figures, when I called out the lies you would just disappear, typical.

You didn't reply to my post pointing out the fallacies in your thinking so I figured you gave up.

Its already listed there in the DOIs, did you not take a look?

doi:10.5281/zenodo.3832362

and the data used in

doi:10.5281/zenodo.3902948

Can you not read? The authors are there.

Gussow et al.

It has been used in a plethora of publications.

There's no conflict of interest. But even if there was, I could just as well say that your papers are CCP hate and thus disqualified immediately. So how come you get to disqualify studies arbitrarily but I need to disprove your ones based on objective arguments and data?

Let me borrow your argument then: Every one of your studies is CCP hate and thus politically motivated. Find a source that is not china-hate. If the authors encourage policies that go against CCP or have any foreign authors, then they are automatically disqualified. If US or any countries that have conflicts with china funds the research, it is also disqualified.

Now that you failed to prove me wrong, let me ask you two questions:

Since you did not objectively disprove my research, is my research now correct?

Since I did not objectively disprove your research, is your research now correct?

Either I proved you wrong through my research, or you were wrong in saying that I need to objectively disprove the research you cited. Pick one.