That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Okay you’ve refused to acknowledge or read my more important points so it appears you don’t want a conversation with perseverations on your agenda. Good luck.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t know what logically led you to that conclusion. Maybe you ought to self-reflect & work on your own biases/not jump to conclusions?

      I’m linking to supporting references, and you’re not, so 🤷.

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          A YouTube video and an opinion piece lol.

          News investigation & report quoting correspondence between biosafety experts/researchers & their letters to journals?

          a Nature article

          Paywalled & also in the news section?

          It’s possible despite lax biosafety, they didn’t leak the virus & didn’t have it. Based on what little I can read of the article: the word of a person at the center of the matter may be true; however, that’s considerable weight for their word to carry that leaves doubt over impartiality & independence. Findings of an independent monitor/investigation would be more convincing.

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Nature is the most highly regarded scientific publication in the world. I can’t help you with your paywall issues.

            • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              It’s a news article in their news section, not a scientific study, Nature’s domain of prestige/authority. In the hierarchy of evidence, this ranks at the bottom as background information.

              The previous comment stands: it’s an isolated claim lacking independent, impartial corroboration.

                • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Well done: that’s the way you defend a thesis. Sources & supported reason. Not whatever nonsense you were doing.

                  I upvoted your comment, too.