A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
So, nothing found yet but great they are looking so hard. Can't see any evidence for mink or raccoon dog testing though.
-
That's super interesting @Eddie Holmes Yes indeed I'm glad they are looking so hard!
-
I was typing this: JC is one of a handful of science journo that could get this right. He's probably non to happy _Science_ is publishing this crap. I find it interesting they give a Editorial credit to Jennifer Sills. On further reflectionof RelBloomshit the the two things that piss me off the most are: 1. the assertion that there is "no clear evidence" for natural origin in the WHO report and 2. "Not racists, however, the Chinese scientists, authorities, and public health officials are lying." 1 is an argument from authority meant to demean a scientific conclusion they don't like andconfuse ppl, while 2 is a self-serving plea to ignore the fact that they are proposing a massive cover-up and conspiracy.
-
My strategy now is try and do as much with China as I can get an insight into what the fuck is going on. Totally agree with your take Bob. #2 is really, really sleazy.
-
2021-05-11 02:56
Edward C. Holmes
That they are looking so bloody hard suggests to me that they clearly think it is natural. Why bother if it's engineered? SLACK_000988
-
It will be interesting to see what Daszak, Koopsman and others have to say about RelBloomshit. Surely they are not going to sit still and agree about the "no clear evidence."
-
Surely not. All the WHO team have seen it.
-
"My strategy now is try and do as much with China as I can get an insight into what the fuck is going on." More power to you on this!
-
@Eddie Holmes It's really something - yeah Jon publish it. [shared file(s): image.png]