The information I referenced in this post I just came across by sheer luck. There was a guy who started doing a daily report on Youtube on the virus because he found it noteworthy, and this was last year in March, before the virus was even considered a threat by anyone (and as it turns out, the virus is not a threat, the government using the virus to take away people's rights turned out to be the true threat). He basically started to look into all this information coming out and because he had a background in biology (a PhD in some field of biology, I don't recall exactly which one) he had some basic knowledge regarding how to read these studies coming out and what to expect. My background is not in biology, it's in engineering, so I didn't necessarily have the expertise or time to un-pack what this guy was able to. He was able to sift through many of the claims and studies the media was pushing and it was very easy for him to realize that the media was lying about a lot of it. The guy was by no means a right winger and I wouldn't necessarily agree with everything he says (he was for masks, but at least he put up an argument for why he thought they were good, unlike the media), but he made some reasoned arguments and did his research. Some noteworthy things he noticed very early on was:
-
On that fake study they came out with that said hydroxychloroquine didn't work, anyone who knew anything about the subject of medical studies would know it was obviously fake if they actually looked at the details of the study (if they read it). And the main author on that study was a known con man. The media likely knew it was fake but it fit their narrative so they ran with it.
-
A lot of people who were claiming this virus was natural and not developed in a lab were associated with the Wuhan virology institute. And they provided no evidence that it was natural. They and the media just used the fact that this researcher (Dr. so and so, PhD) said 'it's natural' as evidence (which is evidence of nothing). This was when most of the evidence already pointed to this being a virus that was developed in a lab for multiple reasons.
If you want, I can give you his Youtube channel and point you to the videos where I got much of my information on the nature of this virus, but I doubt you'd want to wade through 100s of videos of about 30-50 minutes long. The following article does lay out a lot of the information relating to gain of function research and this virus. It's also interesting that there are surprising few articles covering this topic. Most main stream outlets are happy not to cover it and just push their misinformation.
With respect to my social skills, they are not that good. I am by no means an extravert. I have just enough social skills to get by and no more.
The information I referenced in this post I just came across by sheer luck. There was a guy who started doing a daily report on Youtube on the virus because he found it noteworthy, and this was last year in March, before the virus was even considered a threat by anyone (and as it turns out, the virus is not a threat, the government using the virus to take away people's rights turned out to be the true threat). He basically started to look into all this information coming out and because he had a background in biology (a PhD in some field of biology, I don't recall exactly which one) he had some basic knowledge regarding how to read these studies coming out and what to expect. My background is not in biology, it's in engineering, so I didn't necessarily have the expertise or time to un-pack what this guy was able to. He was able to sift through many of the claims and studies the media was pushing and it was very easy for him to realize that the media was lying about a lot of it. The guy was by no means a right winger and I wouldn't necessarily agree with everything he says (he was for masks, but at least he put up an argument for why he thought they were good, unlike the media), but he made some reasoned arguments and did his research. Some noteworthy things he noticed very early on was:
-
On that fake study they came out with that said hydroxychloroquine didn't work, anyone who knew anything about the subject of medical studies would know it was obviously fake if they actually looked at the details of the study (if they read it). And the main author on that study was a known con man. The media likely knew it was fake but it fit their narrative so they ran with it.
-
A lot of people who were claiming this virus was natural and not developed in a lab were associated with the Wuhan virology institute. And they provided no evidence that it was natural. They and the media just used the fact that this researcher (Dr. so and so, PhD) said 'it's natural' as evidence (which is evidence of nothing). This was when most of the evidence already pointed to this being a virus that was developed in a lab for multiple reasons.
If you want, I can give you his Youtube channel and point you to the videos where I got much of my information on the nature of this virus, but I doubt you'd want to wade through 100s of videos of about 30-50 minutes long. The following article does lay out a lot of the information relating to gain of function research and this virus. It's also interesting that there are surprising few articles covering this topic. Most main stream outlets are happy not to cover it and just push their misinformation.
With respect to may social skills, they are not that good. I am by no means an extravert. I have just enough social skills to get by and no more.
The information I referenced in this post I just came across by sheer luck. There was a guy who started doing a daily report on Youtube on the virus because he found it noteworthy, and this was last year in March, before the virus was even considered a threat by anyone (and as it turns out, the virus is not a threat, the government using the virus to take away people's rights turned out to be the true threat). He basically started to look into all this information coming out and because he had a background in biology (a PhD in some field of biology, I don't recall exactly which one) he had some basic knowledge regarding how to read these studies coming out and what to expect. My background is not in biology, it's in engineering, so I didn't necessarily have the expertise or time to un-pack what this guy was able to. He was able to sift through many of the claims and studies the media was pushing and it was very easy for him to realize that the media was lying about a lot of it. The guy was by no means a right winger and I wouldn't necessarily agree with everything he says (he was for masks, but at least he put up an argument for why he thought they were good, unlike the media), but he made some reasoned arguments and did his research. Some noteworthy things he noticed very early on was:
-
On that fake study they came out with that said hydroxychloroquine didn't work, anyone who knew anything about the subject of medical studies would know it was obviously fake if they actually looked at the details of the study (if they read it). And the main author on that study was a known con man. The media likely knew it was fake but it fit their narrative so they ran with it.
-
A lot of people who were claiming this virus was natural and not developed in a lab were associated with the Wuhan virology institute. And they provided no evidence that it was natural They and the media just used the fact that this researcher (Dr. so and so, PhD) said 'it's natural' as evidence (which is evidence of nothing). This was when most of the evidence already pointed to this being a virus that was developed in a lab for multiple reasons.
If you want, I can give you his Youtube channel and point you to the videos where I got much of my information on the nature of this virus, but I doubt you'd want to wade through 100s of videos of about 30-50 minutes long. The following article does lay out a lot of the information relating to gain of function research and this virus. It's also interesting that there are surprising few articles covering this topic. Most main stream outlets are happy not to cover it and just push their misinformation.
With respect to may social skills, they are not that good. I am by no means an extravert. I have just enough social skills to get by and no more.