JDHillFan Posted February 9 Posted February 9 21 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: They clearly haven’t discussed this with the team of Virginia Virologists. 1
IrishLass Posted February 14 Posted February 14 On 2/2/2025 at 2:31 AM, JaCrispy said: Hey @BillsFanNC I think the fact that no one has a rebuttal to your posts is an admission that people opposed to “lab leak” were wrong, and Fauci should be brought up on charges for trying to cover it up… Anyone who tries to refute that just looks like an idiot at this point…👍 Looks like “conspiracy theorists” win again…😎🍺 I think he did more than that!
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Tuesday at 04:11 PM Posted Tuesday at 04:11 PM 12 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Super weird! 41 Virologists formally disagree with Dr Chan. btw, she was not faculty at Harvard as suggested by @Motorin'. She was a post doc. It's a compelling read and thoroughly referenced rebuttal of Dr Chan's thesis. And they published it in a journal, not the NYT. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11406950/
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted Tuesday at 04:48 PM Posted Tuesday at 04:48 PM 36 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: 41 Virologists formally disagree with Dr Chan. btw, she was not faculty at Harvard as suggested by @Motorin'. She was a post doc. It's a compelling read and thoroughly referenced rebuttal of Dr Chan's thesis. And they published it in a journal, not the NYT. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11406950/ Look at you still holding on. When you are actually proven wrong, will you be man enough to admit it? Of course not.
Westside Posted Tuesday at 05:09 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:09 PM 55 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: 41 Virologists formally disagree with Dr Chan. btw, she was not faculty at Harvard as suggested by @Motorin'. She was a post doc. It's a compelling read and thoroughly referenced rebuttal of Dr Chan's thesis. And they published it in a journal, not the NYT. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11406950/ Are they related to the 50 intelligence officers who said hunters laptop was russian disinformation? You leftists lie like a rug without blinking an eye! What a bunch of psychopaths in the democrat party! 1
IrishLass Posted Tuesday at 05:13 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:13 PM Avoid future Covid boosters, and beware future planned mRNA vaccines, such as flu and RSV.
Motorin' Posted Tuesday at 05:21 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:21 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: 41 Virologists formally disagree with Dr Chan. btw, she was not faculty at Harvard as suggested by @Motorin'. She was a post doc. It's a compelling read and thoroughly referenced rebuttal of Dr Chan's thesis. And they published it in a journal, not the NYT. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11406950/ So a propaganda piece got published in a journal titled, "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence." Except there is damning evidence. Again, none of which is refuted in this "journal" article. They start with the assumption that there is no evidence. And go on and on about how hurtful it is to their field to suggest otherwise. In real science, not propaganda, you deal with the evidence. The most damning of which is the evidence that COVID jumped from bat to human at a single location, not across the population. Which is how evolution and viruses work. You're still living in the dark, pretending that Fauci didn't send a barrage of emails to the entire field, commanding them to deny the lab leak theory. When did he send those emails? When he got an email saying that COVID 19 looks like his virus that he had made in Wuhan. At some point you're going to pull your head out of your last. Don't be the last person to do it... And btw, Alina Chin was a post-doc in 2019. She's now an advisor and researcher at MIT and Harvard... Edited Tuesday at 05:23 PM by Motorin' 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Tuesday at 05:29 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:29 PM (edited) 16 minutes ago, Motorin' said: So a propaganda piece got published in a journal titled, "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence." Except there is damning evidence. Again, none of which is refuted in this "journal" article. They start with the assumption that there is no evidence. And go on and on about how hurtful it is to their field to suggest otherwise. In real science, not propaganda, you deal with the evidence. The most damning of which is the evidence that COVID jumped from bat to human at a single location, not across the population. Which is how evolution and viruses work. You're still living in the dark, pretending that Fauci didn't send a barrage of emails to the entire field, commanding them to deny the lab leak theory. When did he send those emails? When he got an email saying that COVID 19 looks like his virus that he had made in Wuhan. At some point you're going to pull your head out of your last. Don't be the last person to do it... And btw, Alina Chin was a post-doc in 2019. She's now an advisor and researcher at MIT and Harvard... Your ignorance is astounding. When you’re not spouting absolute nonsense about a nonexistent meta analysis, you’re misidentifying the respected journal named virology. Stop embarrassing yourself. You’re way out of your lane. Edited Tuesday at 05:38 PM by Joe Ferguson forever 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted Tuesday at 05:38 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:38 PM 8 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Your ignorance is astounding. When you’re not spouting absolute nonsense about a nonexistent meta analysis, your misidentifying the respected journal named virology. Stop embarrassing yourself. You’re way out of your lane. You should really take your own advice. 1
BillsFanNC Posted Tuesday at 05:53 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 05:53 PM 😂 Quack, MD You are a CLOWN. That's a journal op-ed piece. Absolutely no different than what Alina Chan published in the NYT if you exclude the limited audience. Notice who they cite in their acknowledgements as well... Kristian Andersen (Scripps Research Institute), Ralph Baric (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) You mean this Kristian Andersen? You mean this Ralph Baric?
Motorin' Posted Tuesday at 06:21 PM Posted Tuesday at 06:21 PM (edited) 29 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: 😂 Quack, MD You are a CLOWN. That's a journal op-ed piece. Absolutely no different than what Alina Chan published in the NYT if you exclude the limited audience. Notice who they cite in their acknowledgements as well... Kristian Andersen (Scripps Research Institute), Ralph Baric (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) You mean this Kristian Andersen? You mean this Ralph Baric? This same Ralph Baric at UNC who had been creating novel bat corona viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for over a decade. Including sequencing cleavages into spike proteins in order to infect mice that he genetically modified to have human lung cells. https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114658/documents/HHRG-117-IF14-20220427-SD003.pdf Edited Tuesday at 06:23 PM by Motorin'
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted Tuesday at 06:22 PM Posted Tuesday at 06:22 PM He's better off reporting on the rise of nazi hikers. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Tuesday at 08:29 PM Posted Tuesday at 08:29 PM 2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: That's a journal op-ed piece. Absolutely no different than what Alina Chan published in the NYT if you exclude the limited audience. Notice who they cite in their acknowledgements as well... Kristian Andersen (Scripps Research Institute), Ralph Baric (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) You mean this Kristian Andersen? well, the difference is that 41 virologists co authored the peer reviewed journal article and 1 authored the NYT op ed. "We are grateful for important and insightful discussion with Drs. Florence Débarre (CNSR, Sorbonne-Université, France), Kristian Andersen (Scripps Research Institute), Ralph Baric (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Michael Worobey (University of Arizona), Stacey Schultz-Cherry (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital), Anice Lowen (Emory University), and Michael Imperiale (University of Michigan) that informed and enriched this commentary." The fact that the authors had discussions with dissenting scientists is a point in their favor. They wanted to hear opposing view points. They clearly believe that the question of the origin of the virus is not settled science. That's the consensus. The fact that those with opposing opinions allowed an acknowledgement also supports the view that the question is unsettled. You reject even that. I'm done wasting my time on you. 1
Doc Posted Tuesday at 10:00 PM Posted Tuesday at 10:00 PM 4 hours ago, Westside said: Are they related to the 50 intelligence officers who said hunters laptop was russian disinformation? You leftists lie like a rug without blinking an eye! What a bunch of psychopaths in the democrat party! Everyone has an agenda. The trick is finding out what it is. So far there is zero evidence it came from the wet market. 1
Motorin' Posted Tuesday at 10:26 PM Posted Tuesday at 10:26 PM 18 minutes ago, Doc said: Everyone has an agenda. The trick is finding out what it is. So far there is zero evidence it came from the wet market. It's not just that there's no evidence it came from a wet market. It's that highly infectious viruses spread across large segments of a species before jumping to other species. And that jump happens across the population. Not at one specific spot, or in one specific animal. If CV 19 had a natural origin it would have been found in bats across China. And it would have mutated and jumped to humans across China. The fact that there was one hot spot for human transmission, within blocks of the Wuhan novel Corona Virus lab, and that no bats have been found across China with CV 19, is a smoking gun that it leaked from the lab. Combined with the clear signs of human manipulation of the spike protein / furin cleavage site, means that any virologist rejecting the lab leak theory is lying at the behest of Tony Fauci, who commanded that the lab leak theory be rejected... I cannot wait for the trials to begin. Pam Bondi and Kash Patel are going to be busy! Lots of Dr. Quack tears will be shed. 3
Recommended Posts