Scientists conclude that it was not a Wuhan lab leak

Remember when I referred to virologists as people who presuppose viruses and see them into existence ? EM is just part-and-parcel. It’s point and declare …

Electron Microscope Imagery: “Virus” Proof or Refutation?

 

Sure that’s your claim, but I’m just looking for what evidence would change your mind. If your answer is EM images but also that EM images can’t be trusted, we’re left without much of an answer to the question.

 

I don’t understand what’s so difficult about this. Do we vote on viruses or do we examine the claims of virologists for their substance ?

 

I also don’t understand why voting keeps coming up. Basically, I believe that to be scientific a claim needs to have a way it can be materially contradicted. So:

1. I asked for what might count as evidence against your claim.
   
2. You sent a link with a list of things that have mostly already occurred, including getting EM images of the viral particles.
   
3. Then when it was mentioned that there are many EM images of viruses, you said EM images cannot be trusted
   
4. This leaves us with a rather unfalsifiable theory.

I’m not sure what voting has to do with anything.

 

You’re missing the point, Duggers isn’t real. There is no one posting under that name. You can’t prove there is.

 

“What do you say to all the pictures ? There are innumerable pictures at that! And virologists know a lot more about the subject than you do.”

Translation: “We voted and you’re wrong. Viruses do exist.”

 

Birds!

 

See ? He does exist!

 

You’re the one that brought up images, not me. I’m simply trying to get a straight answer to our central question: What evidence, if it existed, would convince you that viruses exist?

If this question can’t answered, the inquiry simply isn’t scientific.

 

You said …

“If the many thousands of EM images of viruses that we have aren’t good enough, what exactly would make them better?“

In any case, something of this scope would have to be documented to prove viruses exist …

The Science Santa Claus: The Plausibility of the Jolly Man

 

Then my work here is done. I’ll see everyone over at the global warming thread.

 

I certainly don't see anything.

 

So brave!

 

He is a computer AS. Artificial Stupidity.

 

This post is phenomenal!

Well Played!

 

My My, looks like we were lied/misled about the lab leak. Truth starting to come out—
Public was misled by the scientific community about COVID origins, NY Times columnist argues

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html

Scientists 'badly misled' public on COVID-19 origins: New York Times columnist

New York Times changes its tune on lab-leak theory

 

The lab leak theory only serves to keep alive in the public imagination the material existence of a deadly pathogen that passes from person to person, sickens and kills and so validates the need for pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions.

It also conveniently shifts the blame to China when we should be focusing attention on the fact that it’s not China’s fault that we became China.

 

“Opinion column” by a person with no science credentials…. Might as well have been written by the secretary at a dentists office…

 

So you are saying that the Trump administration misled the public..... really?

 

Neither nature nor nurture, so to speak.

Both theories fantastical pseudoscience.

Virologist, some blogger in a basement … same thing.