It should be noted that you don't regularly read their papers, as I have shown in the past, when you had no idea what was in papers you claimed you read.
To rehash, you sought refuge in my innocent blunder of directing you to the wrong section, of the paper you tendered as shut-up sauce, which paper was self-refuting. Most papers I’ve perused fall apart in the methods section, whereas, as I recall, your paper fell apart in the materials section. But let’s cut the crap. It gets to the point where when you’ve perused a few dozen papers, you’ve pretty much read them all.
It appears we will not solve this to our mutual satisfaction. All I can say is that your conclusion is clearly not plainly obvious to everyone, so your process of analysis must be different in a way that we have been unable to identify. Until we can identify your alternative mode of reasoning, it cannot be assessed.
Or, in other, more succinct words, you don't read the papers and don't like it pointed out that you don't read the papers, because it sounds better to say that you do.
I’ve already explained my alternative mode of, let’s say, verification: I don’t take for granted that viruses exists simply because I get mostly ad hom when I suggest that they don’t. In short, I took a second and closer look at the claims made by virologists.
Exactly. It makes no difference. It’s not like we are going to send them a bill if we can definitively prove this accidentally leaked from a lab vs a wet market. Would be nice to know for posterity’s sake but I don’t see that ever happening.
Lab leak appeals to the ghoulish part of the brain that imagines we’re living through the time of a material that kills like a poison AND spreads, from person to person, like a virus is supposed to.
I hope you have not sensed an ad hominem attack from me. I know you have a minority viewpoint, and I wanted to see if I could understand how it was derived. It is just hard for me to assess the merits of something described as a second and closer look. If we gave only that advice to a virologist, I can’t see how we should expect him to change his mind.
I do appreciate your willingness to engage me. It’s a refreshing change! How it happened to me ... Lockdowns, what I now regard as mass-hysteria, turned out to be the catalyst for a deeper look at viruses. My journey took many months and progressed from pronounced concern, like everyone else in March 2020, to the conviction of gross overreach, to finally jettisoning my belief in viruses. And my ‘deconversion’ would never happened had I not noticed there were scientists, former doctors and virologists and ordinary joes like me who’d thrown off belief in contagion and were able to articulate why. On my “Viruses Don’t Exist” thread I’ve posted many articles of a sort which served to push me out of the paradigm, so to speak. Perhaps it’s hope against hope that has me persisting on threads like these. But I strongly believe that the existence/non-existence of viruses is THE root issue. It’s well enough to have been freed from fear of contagion. But as long as belief in cough and kill Grandma persists, I’m afraid we will always be subject to restrictions on freedoms.
Just to be clear, the procedure in question is that you claimed to read something (making multiple false claims) and then were found out not to have read the paper despite your claims. That is the fault in your procedure in that instance. An error in procedure that you repeated here by claiming you read the papers when you don't. But you think it sounds better than I read websites, so that is the claim you went with.
There were disabling problems with the methods section too. Bottom line: neither missteps I may have made nor your paper can recognized the modern version of demonology that is virology. BTW, does “md” stand for Maryland or medical doctor ? If the latter, unless you’re a trauma surgeon, Uber Eats is hiring.
I think it is fitting and accurate that your description here is nothing more than you would prefer that there not be viruses because their existence is inconvenient to you and your other beliefs and you found some people online to tell you what you preferred.
It stands for Maryland, which is where I lived when I signed up for the account. However, I spent long enough actually reading papers that I am capable of reading research papers and telling when others don't.
But you’re incapable of understanding how irrelevant missteps are in the light of the fraud that is virology. This shortcoming in you is so pronounced that you overlooked the numerous flaws in the study you tendered as a slam dunk.
Pretending for a second he actually believes this shit (he doesn’t) Of course it took this boomer his entire life to doubt the existence of viruses - not coincidentally when a virus has for the first time personally inconvenienced him.
