Excellent! Keep hammering on the oft used flimsy unexamined assumptions and overbroad undefined vague terms. That's the lynch pin of the con. String a bunch of misapplied metaphors in the service of bamboozle, not to mention democide.
Yes, I understand—you’re way more diplomatic than i’m able to muster. Frustrating when they never question the underlying assumptions which allows for the continuation of the scam—although i appreciate Dr Craig’s work, like other dissidents, at the end of the day, she reinforces the baked-in dogma
Although Clare Craig uses the word "spread," her hypothesis MIGHT be better-captured as involving dispersal, expiration, and "circulation." (I don't want to put words into her mouth - which is an impetus for initiating the conversation.)
Laying aside the bigger scientific question about what viruses are or aren't, those who hold a Lab Origin view should be able to explain what they think happened on the events and physics side.
Robert Kogon has argued (and I think he's mostly correct) that Lab Origin = deliberate planning/release. Like Clare, he has demurred on proposing mechanisms or scenarios.
Among the popularized academics with a 'Next Pandemic' view, Sunetra Gupta is the most logically consistent of anyone who holds a natural origins perspective. That doesn't mean I agree with her - I don't. But the intellectual consistency and depth of her position is strong. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/sunetra-guptas-view-on-the-origins
Far as I can tell, Clare differs substantially from Gupta wrt to what GoF is able to produce. Clare Craig and Robert Kogon's arguments would be stronger if they posited direct and plausible mechanisms for the agent named SARS-CoV-2 getting from a lab(s) to everywhere else - and did so in a manner mindful of on-the-ground events and timeline.
Excellent! Keep hammering on the oft used flimsy unexamined assumptions and overbroad undefined vague terms. That's the lynch pin of the con. String a bunch of misapplied metaphors in the service of bamboozle, not to mention democide.
I'm not trying to "hammer" as much as I am trying to understand the thinking and propositions. :)
Yes, I understand—you’re way more diplomatic than i’m able to muster. Frustrating when they never question the underlying assumptions which allows for the continuation of the scam—although i appreciate Dr Craig’s work, like other dissidents, at the end of the day, she reinforces the baked-in dogma
"Never let the [opponent] choose the battlefield" - Gen. Patton
“Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” - Stephen R. Covey
"Never put your [opponent] in a corner." - Sun Tzu
Good advice! Will heed! yes, I tend to be a little reactionary— given what has transpired; hard to keep cool head :)
The hypothesis about spreading of viruses is backed by zero science.
Masks forexample was tested by the spreading of aerosoles ASSUMING, they contained viruses.
Should be easy, provided contagious, virus actually exist to do the following experiment:
-Put on a mask on a sick person say 15 min.
-Scrape of the mask to collect virus.
-Put the stuff you scraped off up the nose of a healthy person.
-Watch the virus multiply in this person and him gjetting the cold.
No such experiment was done during Covid.
Although Clare Craig uses the word "spread," her hypothesis MIGHT be better-captured as involving dispersal, expiration, and "circulation." (I don't want to put words into her mouth - which is an impetus for initiating the conversation.)
Laying aside the bigger scientific question about what viruses are or aren't, those who hold a Lab Origin view should be able to explain what they think happened on the events and physics side.
I tried to address this in an article in December: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/do-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2-matter
Robert Kogon has argued (and I think he's mostly correct) that Lab Origin = deliberate planning/release. Like Clare, he has demurred on proposing mechanisms or scenarios.
Among the popularized academics with a 'Next Pandemic' view, Sunetra Gupta is the most logically consistent of anyone who holds a natural origins perspective. That doesn't mean I agree with her - I don't. But the intellectual consistency and depth of her position is strong. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/sunetra-guptas-view-on-the-origins
Far as I can tell, Clare differs substantially from Gupta wrt to what GoF is able to produce. Clare Craig and Robert Kogon's arguments would be stronger if they posited direct and plausible mechanisms for the agent named SARS-CoV-2 getting from a lab(s) to everywhere else - and did so in a manner mindful of on-the-ground events and timeline.
Or indeed ever.