What's the matter with Donald Trump.

[bcredliner]

I don't know what has changed but I can only read a portion of the stuff you posted. It's cutoff at the top and the bottom. Would like to read the posts. I assume it is on your end as nothing has changed on mine. Can you fix it?

[crystalworks]

Thank goodness for the FoIA. Even if it does take 1.5 years to compel release of documents.

While Judicial Watch is undoubtedly right-leaning, and receives large amounts of money from the Kochs, the documents they obtained, are not of their creation. Parsing through them adds more evidence to the Wuhan Lab origination theory/hypothesis/choose your vernacular.

I mean, here is the official National Intelligence Council report that was released Oct 2021: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/docum...19-Origins.pdf

Disclosure, I've only read the "key take-aways" in the past, but it gives enough information to summarize the findings. The views are split 4 vs 4 among "Intelligence Community Elements."

4 of them say ("with low confidence") that it was a natural mutation that originated in China.

1 says it was likely ("with moderate confidence") that it was a laboratory incident originating at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

3 elements "remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely."

If the intelligence community as a whole is split (or uncertain) on this issue... I feel pretty confident in my logic-based belief after seeing the evidence continue to trickle out.

Unfortunately, as stated before, I don't believe China would EVER let the proof of a laboratory incident/accident/etc see the light of day. And I also fully believe that it has already been destroyed. So an accurate conclusion of what happened will likely never be realized.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

Thank goodness for the FoIA. Even if it does take 1.5 years to compel release of documents.

While Judicial Watch is undoubtedly right-leaning, and receives large amounts of money from the Kochs, the documents they obtained, are not of their creation. Parsing through them adds more evidence to the Wuhan Lab origination theory/hypothesis/choose your vernacular.

I mean, here is the official National Intelligence Council report that was released Oct 2021: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/docum...19-Origins.pdf

Disclosure, I've only read the "key take-aways" in the past, but it gives enough information to summarize the findings. The views are split 4 vs 4 among "Intelligence Community Elements."

4 of them say ("with low confidence") that it was a natural mutation that originated in China.

1 says it was likely ("with moderate confidence") that it was a laboratory incident originating at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

3 elements "remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely."

If the intelligence community as a whole is split (or uncertain) on this issue... I feel pretty confident in my logic-based belief after seeing the evidence continue to trickle out.

Unfortunately, as stated before, I don't believe China would EVER let the proof of a laboratory incident/accident/etc see the light of day. And I also fully believe that it has already been destroyed. So an accurate conclusion of what happened will likely never be realized.

I read the whole article twice and many others. I respect your choice of the explanation for the origination of COVID. As you say you are pretty confident. However, since no one actually knows how COVID came to be, it is an opinion however the basis used for determination. In a debate I would feel as comfortable defending your position as much as the others.

While the documents Judicial Watch listed are not their creation, because of the bias, I question if they posted a one sided view, if they left out information that didn't support the conclusion they wanted. We have no way of knowing if that is the case or not. I don't trust any information that is political biased.

[EODguy]

"Show me an example of moving the goalposts please."

"Yes, I read the article very carefully 3 times. I did not read the links. The links are sources for the content of the article that I read 3 times. Where is the link you posted so I can read it?"

Exhibit A:

"While the documents Judicial Watch listed are not their creation, because of the bias, I question if they posted a one sided view, if they left out information that didn't support the conclusion they wanted. We have no way of knowing if that is the case or not. I don't trust any information that is political biased."~BCredliner

Even though the source documents are linked you did not read them only the article (writeup) yet you say you don't trust the website because of their political leanings so... ipso facto you are right and others are wrong.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

"Show me an example of moving the goalposts please."

"Yes, I read the article very carefully 3 times. I did not read the links. The links are sources for the content of the article that I read 3 times. Where is the link you posted so I can read it?"

Exhibit A:

"While the documents Judicial Watch listed are not their creation, because of the bias, I question if they posted a one sided view, if they left out information that didn't support the conclusion they wanted. We have no way of knowing if that is the case or not. I don't trust any information that is political biased."~BCredliner

Even though the source documents are linked you did not read them only the article (writeup) yet you say you don't trust the website because of their political leanings so... ipso facto you are right and others are wrong.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

So what? The article was created from the source documents. Meaning anything important was in the main document.

I didn't say anyone was wrong. I said the article is bias and therefore I don't trust the conclusions drawn. It has nothing to do with you or anyone else being right or wrong. Suggest you try reading posts closer and make sure you understand what is written before you jump to conclusions.

[EODguy]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

So what? The article was created from the source documents. Meaning anything important was in the main document.



I didn't say anyone was wrong. I said the article is bias and therefore I don't trust the conclusions drawn. It has nothing to do with you or anyone else being right or wrong. Suggest you try reading posts closer and make sure you understand what is written before you jump to conclusions.

Do you not recall me posting a link to an aggregate website that listed a shit-load of studies published in the Lancet, NiH, etc and you said you didn't bother since the aggregater was anti-vaccine?

If you were the least bit honest you would have admitted that peer reviewed medical journals, well respected and mainstream are not showing any bias that the hosting website may have and dismissing the info out of hand the way you do is your way of moving the goalposts and keep your blinders on....

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

Do you not recall me posting a link to an aggregate website that listed a shit-load of studies published in the Lancet, NiH, etc and you said you didn't bother since the aggregater was anti-vaccine?

If you were the least bit honest you would have admitted that peer reviewed medical journals, well respected and mainstream are not showing any bias that the hosting website may have and dismissing the info out of hand the way you do is your way of moving the goalposts and keep your blinders on....

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

This was the first response to the article: Posting a link to the original article means nothing. The claims of the original article are what has been debunked.

In the face of three reputable fact checkers that have studied the article and listed all the false claims-- you choose to ignore them and respond with a link to the original article as if posting it endorses your post. It is the exact article that was fact checked and debunked. Please explain why you think posting the original article is meaningful.


_

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

Do you not recall me posting a link to an aggregate website that listed a shit-load of studies published in the Lancet, NiH, etc and you said you didn't bother since the aggregater was anti-vaccine?

If you were the least bit honest you would have admitted that peer reviewed medical journals, well respected and mainstream are not showing any bias that the hosting website may have and dismissing the info out of hand the way you do is your way of moving the goalposts and keep your blinders on....

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

This was my second post: Maybe this will help explain why the study is not applicable. Overstates scientific confidence: The claim that chloroquine is a cure against SARS-CoV-2 is based on an in vitro study published in 2005 on SARS-CoV-1. It is impossible to infer that a drug will work as a COVID-19 cure in a living person from an in vitro cell culture study on a different virus, even one as closely related to SARS-CoV-2 as SARS-CoV-1.

This was the second: Factually Inaccurate: There is no indication that the 2005 research paper was requested, conducted, or funded by the NIH. Rather, the authors were affiliated with the U.S. CDC and a Canadian research institute.

Neither move the goal posts. The post has been debunked. My guess is the reason I am able to debunk your references is you aren't factchecking anything for political bias or accuracy. If one goes looking only for what endorses their point they will find it. Before posting it is important to fact check the information. If one doesn't there's a good chance their post will compromise their credibility as being as biased and/or not credible as the post.

__________________

[Maruzo]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

This was my second post: Maybe this will help explain why the study is not applicable. Overstates scientific confidence: The claim that chloroquine is a cure against SARS-CoV-2 is based on an in vitro study published in 2005 on SARS-CoV-1. It is impossible to infer that a drug will work as a COVID-19 cure in a living person from an in vitro cell culture study on a different virus, even one as closely related to SARS-CoV-2 as SARS-CoV-1.

This was the second: Factually Inaccurate: There is no indication that the 2005 research paper was requested, conducted, or funded by the NIH. Rather, the authors were affiliated with the U.S. CDC and a Canadian research institute.

Neither move the goal posts. The post has been debunked. My guess is the reason I am able to debunk your references is you aren't factchecking anything for political bias or accuracy. If one goes looking only for what endorses their point they will find it. Before posting it is important to fact check the information. If one doesn't there's a good chance their post will compromise their credibility as being as biased and/or not credible as the post.

__________________

That is sound advice for anyone who wishes to learn and improve their knowledge base.

[Maruzo]

https://apple.news/AZ-nU2JFWQoKhrv7tNXDVUw

DOJ needs to put Trump behind bars. He attempted a coup and nearly brought down our democracy on Jan 6. There’s no excuse and no better way to bring faith back to our democracy than to take down the man who nearly destroyed it.