March 17, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: The woman who wrote that article has written a dozen articles about COVID since October You losers are so desperate for this to still be a thing - not being able to go out in public made you feel like less of a loser for not having any friends I guess. Sad way to live. Don't worry - you'll always have your boosters as a reminder Let it go? Tell it to the person who started the thread, dumb ass. Better yet, maybe don't weigh in on anything technical or even remotely related to science, and stick to topics that are more your speed, like threads about trannies and queens.
March 17, 20232 yr You can't tell the idiots they are idiots.... They aren't smart enough to understand. Let them be.
March 17, 20232 yr 10 minutes ago, toolg said: You can't tell the idiots they are idiots.... They aren't smart enough to understand. Let them be. Making any conclusion other than humans and animals were infected in the wet market is the incorrect conclusion. Additionally, per a NYT article, the findings were leaked and have not been peer-reviewed.
March 17, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, BBE said: Making any conclusion other than humans and animals were infected in the wet market is the incorrect incomplete conclusion. Additionally, per a NYT article, the findings were leaked and have not been peer-reviewed. fyp
March 17, 20232 yr "It genuinely was not our intent for this to come out but we had to get something out there to distract from the reports about the lab leak” Fauci Fanboys:
March 17, 20232 yr 53 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: "It genuinely was not our intent for this to come out but we had to get something out there to distract from the reports about the lab leak” Fauci Fanboys:
January 27Jan 27 2 hours ago, The Norseman said: "The CIA now believes the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated from a laboratory, according to an assessment that points the finger at China even while acknowledging that the spy agency has "low confidence" in its own conclusion.”
January 27Jan 27 30 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: "The CIA now believes the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated from a laboratory, according to an assessment that points the finger at China even while acknowledging that the spy agency has "low confidence" in its own conclusion.” Which means that they have even lower confidence that it originated from natural causes. But don't let that deter you from breathlessly towing the party line.
January 27Jan 27 36 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Which means that they have even lower confidence that it originated from natural causes. But don't let that deter you from breathlessly towing the party line. That’s not what low confidence in an intelligence assessment means. Low confidence means poor or questionable sources with significant concerns about credibility. It’s the equivalent of an educated guess based on pretty much gut instinct. It’s not a this or that, or more this than that.
January 27Jan 27 36 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Which means that they have even lower confidence that it originated from natural causes. But don't let that deter you from breathlessly towing the party line. I simply posted the entire context of the CIA’s statement. Not sure why that gets your panties in a bunch.
January 27Jan 27 1 minute ago, Bill said: That’s not what low confidence in an intelligence assessment means. Low confidence means poor or questionable sources with significant concerns about credibility. It’s the equivalent of an educated guess based on pretty much gut instinct. It’s not a this or that, or more this than that. Originally scientists levied an educated guess that it came from natural origins, presumably, at a wet market. Now, multiple government agencies have come out with studies saying that based on the limited evidence available it is more likely that it came from a lab leak. Which means, that given the choice between natural origins or a lab leak, they believe that it is more likely that it escaped the lab. Are you debating that?
January 27Jan 27 31 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Originally scientists levied an educated guess that it came from natural origins, presumably, at a wet market. Now, multiple government agencies have come out with studies saying that based on the limited evidence available it is more likely that it came from a lab leak. Which means, that given the choice between natural origins or a lab leak, they believe that it is more likely that it escaped the lab. Are you debating that? I am debating that there is enough confidence in any assessment to know for sure where exactly it came from, as each assessment on either end has only brought forth low confidence evidence. Also, none of what you cited are studies. They government didn’t come out with studies. They came out with intelligence assessments. And this one is the equivalent of "yeah probably maybe I dunno lol”. Youre looking for information to support your viewpoint. Based on your post history, you look at everything as if it were a dichotomy. I hate to break it to you, but 99% of the time with whatever it is, it’s not a this or that.
January 27Jan 27 39 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Originally scientists levied an educated guess that it came from natural origins, presumably, at a wet market. Now, multiple government agencies have come out with studies saying that based on the limited evidence available it is more likely that it came from a lab leak. Which means, that given the choice between natural origins or a lab leak, they believe that it is more likely that it escaped the lab. Are you debating that? Wrong, scientists mostly still believe that there is strong evidence they the origins were from a spill over event from animals to human. Here’s a tip for ya, The CIA is not a science organization. Chances are, we will never know the exact origin.
January 27Jan 27 4 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: Wrong, scientists mostly still believe that there is strong evidence they the origins were from a spill over event from animals to human. Here’s a tip for ya, The CIA is not a science organization. Chances are, we will never know the exact origin. Excuse me, but they are absolutely a science organization. How can something that isn't a science organization create crack in a lab?
January 27Jan 27 49 minutes ago, Bill said: I am debating that there is enough confidence in any assessment to know for sure where exactly it came from, as each assessment on either end has only brought forth low confidence evidence. Also, none of what you cited are studies. They government didn’t come out with studies. They came out with intelligence assessments. And this one is the equivalent of "yeah probably maybe I dunno lol”. Youre looking for information to support your viewpoint. Based on your post history, you look at everything as if it were a dichotomy. I hate to break it to you, but 99% of the time with whatever it is, it’s not a this or that. I never suggested that anyone is, was, or could be sure of anything. I posted an article about a current event that I came across in the news. I then made light of the very obvious conclusion of said article that the CIA is now leaning towards the lab leak theory over the wet market theory. You replied with a bunch of nonsense about the technical definitions of some of the words I used, which proved no point other than the fact that you like to ridiculously overcomplicate things. Now you are back peddling trying to frame the argument in absolutes.
January 27Jan 27 4 minutes ago, lynched1 said: But....."the science". Fing cultist You have no clue what science even is. STFU and go sit down dip sheet.
January 27Jan 27 4 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: You have no clue what science even is. STFU and go sit down dip sheet. Or what old man? Gonna do it for me? 😆 B*** me
January 28Jan 28 1 hour ago, The Norseman said: I never suggested that anyone is, was, or could be sure of anything. I posted an article about a current event that I came across in the news. I then made light of the very obvious conclusion of said article that the CIA is now leaning towards the lab leak theory over the wet market theory. You replied with a bunch of nonsense about the technical definitions of some of the words I used, which proved no point other than the fact that you like to ridiculously overcomplicate things. Now you are back peddling trying to frame the argument in absolutes. Yeah man, I used as a point the published guidelines that intelligence agencies use when they make an intelligence assessment, and I did so in regards to your post wherein you posted an article about an intelligence agency making an intelligence assessment. No one else here seems to find such a concept hard to grasp except yourself. Then you opine that I am speaking in absolutes in a post where I very obviously implied that there are no absolutes. There is, however, one absolute when it comes to the matter. It’s this video:
Create an account or sign in to comment