121–130 of 1001 posts
I personally believe in Rootlclaim's Bayesian analysis ( https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COV... ) which states that "the virus was developed during gain-of-function research and was released by accident (89% probability)" This is consistent with David Martin's speech in Europe: https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1661698114917646336 I haven't checked the "publicly available references" but m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
No it is not an ad hominem attack to say that your argument is childish and stupid. You're not even having a debate. You're just spamming the forum with drivel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can and should do that anyway, why do we need a smoking gun, I mean, beyond the pandemic we had.
I'd avoid loaded terms like "smoking gun" in this discussion. My point is that if the pandemic was caused by a leak, then that would be a prior that could aid in future decision-making. I don't understand your position that we should not seek the truth. Somehow knowing the truth about a past event can have no bearing on the future?
I guess I also don't see why articles like this are needed to work on pandemic prevention.
I can totally see why people need them for at the very least getting clicks and attention.
After a quick read of the article, it presents no new data, and is replete with innuendo pointing at the Wuhan lab, rather than any direct evidence. Most importantly, the general reader should know that all labs researching viruses do research on dangerous viruses. After all there is no incentive to research benign viruses. So the fact that the Wuhan lab worked on coronaviruses is not in itself an indication of any i…
> Most importantly, the general reader should know that all labs researching viruses do research on dangerous viruses. After all there is no incentive to research benign viruses. That is completely untrue. Agricultural labs for instance research plant viruses which are _incompatible_ with humans completely. Still these plant virus would have to be researched under stringent isolation because of the damage they may po…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing how the virus leaked allows us to figure out how to try and prevent it happening again. When you cover it up, prevent investigations, destroy data, and try to blame the rest of the world. That does not help understand how we can prevent it happening again. If China was open and honest from day 1, countries would have actually tried to help. But instead all the CCP did was hide it and blame everyone else. It’s…
Yeah, in fact being honest, sincere and collaborative with foreign powers is the tenet of NSA, CIA, and all major security agencies in the USA, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the article is implying there something new that actually would have some kind of bearing or meaning.
Russians started to clean up evidence, which points to BSL4 lab "Vector". IMHO, this article is a part of their disinformation campaign. The name of their vaccine "Sputnik V" (Follower 5) suggests that there was "Something","Sputnik I", "Sputnik II", "Sputnik III", "Sputnik IV" before "Sputnik V". It's impossible for Russians to produce 5 vaccines in row in such short span of time, just few months, which took billion…
[flagged]
I remember still when it was considered a conspiracy theory and we got downvoted here and banned on reddit for even implying the possibility. Unfortunately something similar is happening with AI x-risk right now.
I remember still when it was considered a conspiracy theory and we got downvoted here and banned on reddit for even implying the possibility. Unfortunately something similar is happening with AI x-risk right now.
Same with pointing out at the first studies that indicated that the virus was airborne. I got downvoted to oblivion here for posting a link to the study.