I agree with you that the presenters of that evidence stink.
But the paper is "treated as evidence" according to the rules of the world.
So if you deny it, you have to deny it with "evidence".
However, there are only those who give the "impression" that the presenter smells fishy, and there is no one who provides "evidence".They are looking at the presenter, not the evidence.
Give me "evidence to the contrary" and I'll believe it.
I believe things. Not people.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I'd like to add that I know exactly how you feel.
It was a natural question for a conversation. Thank you.
But facts and proofs, like coffee, must be carefully extracted and handled.
Every feeling is the cause of a preconceived notion, an impurity that must be removed with a coffee filter.
Coffee with impurities will only be drunk by those who "like" it.
We are in the midst of suffering from this very obstacle every day, aren't we?
The taste barrier can be replaced by ideology and a feeling of belonging.
That’s not how this works. “Proof” from an untrustworthy source isn’t proof at all—it’s just fake news. Show us proof from someone who is not in the pockets of the deep state.
I wrote the same message to another person, and I don't want to write it if I can help it, but since you asked, I'll respond.
"Proof from where?" is not the issue.
As long as it is certified as a proof, if you want to deny it, you have to bring a "proof to deny".
Even if the proof is faked, that is the problem of the person who faked it, and the problem of the reviewers who failed to see it.
It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them.
Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.
Here's a question for you:
If the virus was, indeed, isolated, then why can't the very test that is supposed to detect it actually able to detect it?
Seems like air tight logic, yes?
I've already written that too.
2.The pandemic is a scam created by PCR testing and twisting of the rules through emergency measures.
If we really spread the virus, how will those bad guys be able to keep themselves safe? It's a statistical scam to solve that problem.
Scammers tell the truth 99% of the time, and lie 1% of the time.
It's an overused phrase.
I agree with you that the presenters of that evidence stink.
But the paper is "treated as evidence" according to the rules of the world.
So if you deny it, you have to deny it with "evidence".
However, there are only those who give the "impression" that the presenter smells fishy, and there is no one who provides "evidence".They are looking at the presenter, not the evidence.
Give me "evidence to the contrary" and I'll believe it. I believe things. Not people.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I'd like to add that I know exactly how you feel. It was a natural question for a conversation. Thank you.
But facts and proofs, like coffee, must be carefully extracted and handled. Every feeling is the cause of a preconceived notion, an impurity that must be removed with a coffee filter.
Coffee with impurities will only be drunk by those who "like" it. We are in the midst of suffering from this very obstacle every day, aren't we?
The taste barrier can be replaced by ideology and a feeling of belonging.
That’s not how this works. “Proof” from an untrustworthy source isn’t proof at all—it’s just fake news. Show us proof from someone who is not in the pockets of the deep state.
Your inability to trust it is a matter of your mind. It's your problem. You are just following your heart's urge to not trust.
It does not do the work of extracting facts and proofs from information.
I understand how you feel, but then you have to allow for the same "I don't want to believe you" and not being listened to by you.
Is the soup a mixture of known and unknown RNAs?
If it's just the unknown stuff, that's a reasonable approach. If the virus exists, then it must be in there, right?
Either way, it's something I'm interested in.
Can I have the URL? I'm not very good at listening, so preferably with subtitles if possible.
" because all you have is fragments which don't allow you to know definitively what intact genome they were a part of."
So you're pointing out that this doesn't make it a "discovery"? This is it. This is what I want you to talk about.
"Who do I hate? Do you believe that guy?" And I don't care about such emotionalism.
In case you're wondering, I'm arguing that Koch's principles don't necessarily apply to viruses.
What is your view on that?