The babblers can't begin to see why their positions are incoherent and contradictory, so explaining why doesn't work on them.
It's playing chess with pigeons. I've done it many times and it's poor sport.
Biology, Virology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Cell Biology are hard sciences.
I have been able to personally confirm as real, by hard study and accredited, published laboratory work, some of the things the "no virus" crowd claims are not real.
Bailey, Cowen, Kaufmann et al are as credible as protestors in front of an automobile dealership screaming that fuel injection is a hoax.
That may be true, but I think this thread was supposed to be about arguments and evidence that people can evaluate.
So this comment, to me, is an appeal to authority (yours) and a denigration of the authority of people you disagree with. And you may be right, but I don't know you and haven't gone through your studies and discoveries. So can you give me specific arguments and evidence?
Cowen and Kaufmann's argument about the validity of genome sequencing is self-contradictory.
It's like saying "Authentic King Arthur's Peasant Rye Bread must be baked at 425°F for 15 minutes then at 375°F for 20 minutes" and elsewhere saying "Ovens can not be set to a specific temperature".
It's like saying "Gasoline engines burn a fuel-air mixture" then elsewhere saying "carburetors and fuel-injection systems are a hoax."
Thanks. That article you linked to is quite persuasive and interesting. I don't feel quite ready to say that I "CHANGED MY MIND" on the basis of one article, but it has somewhat moved me on the spectrum of where I stand on this issue.
The babblers can't begin to see why their positions are incoherent and contradictory, so explaining why doesn't work on them.
It's playing chess with pigeons. I've done it many times and it's poor sport.
Do you mean the babblers who support viral theory or the babbles who deny it?
Biology, Virology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Cell Biology are hard sciences.
I have been able to personally confirm as real, by hard study and accredited, published laboratory work, some of the things the "no virus" crowd claims are not real.
Bailey, Cowen, Kaufmann et al are as credible as protestors in front of an automobile dealership screaming that fuel injection is a hoax.
That may be true, but I think this thread was supposed to be about arguments and evidence that people can evaluate.
So this comment, to me, is an appeal to authority (yours) and a denigration of the authority of people you disagree with. And you may be right, but I don't know you and haven't gone through your studies and discoveries. So can you give me specific arguments and evidence?
You'll need to study the field yourself. And do the bench-work to learn how to do it right and what can go wrong.
Consider https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/08/26/misinformation-sars-cov-2-whole-genome-sequencing/
Cowen and Kaufmann's argument about the validity of genome sequencing is self-contradictory.
It's like saying "Authentic King Arthur's Peasant Rye Bread must be baked at 425°F for 15 minutes then at 375°F for 20 minutes" and elsewhere saying "Ovens can not be set to a specific temperature".
It's like saying "Gasoline engines burn a fuel-air mixture" then elsewhere saying "carburetors and fuel-injection systems are a hoax."
That's how bad it is.
Thanks. That article you linked to is quite persuasive and interesting. I don't feel quite ready to say that I "CHANGED MY MIND" on the basis of one article, but it has somewhat moved me on the spectrum of where I stand on this issue.