Forever alone? Attraction and keeping the girl chasing you - http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=131498033

You will never know your limits, unless you push yourself past the imaginary lines you have drawn in the sand.

Knee Dragger - '06 GSX-R750

Forever alone? Attraction and keeping the girl chasing you - http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=131498033

You will never know your limits, unless you push yourself past the imaginary lines you have drawn in the sand.

Knee Dragger - '06 GSX-R750

Originally Posted By gwg77⏩

Bullshіt Reliance. Did you forget this part? Heexplicitly statesit is not a lab construct or purposefully manipulated virus.

"Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus."


On this quote in the serial passaging section:

“In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations (Fig. 1a) during adaptation to passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV11.”

He goes on to say:

"The finding of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins with nearly identical RBDs, however, provides a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these via recombination or mutation19.

The acquisition of both the polybasic cleavage site and predicted O-linked glycans also argues against culture-based scenarios."



Let's not forget how Kristian Andersen called anyone a conspiracy theorist if they believed in lab leak on twitter. How many times did he delete his twitter account the past 3 years? Dude spent the last 3 years calling anyone a conspiracy theorist. Get the fuсk outta here.









And don't forget Francis Collins:

In the pangolin text you quoted they are saying it is possible but unlikely. They then go on to explain their reasoning. You also didn’t acknowledge the other passages which are unambiguous. The authors state, verbatim “cannot disprove…”. and then restate it again a bit later.

The other paragraphs on the cleavage site and glycans are again perfectly consistent with his email. It is saying a natural origin is the best (simplest) explanation, but in theory, those features are explainable through a LL hypothesis, specifically “culture-based” scenarios. He is doing exactly what a good scientist should be doing!

And as cited, subsequent work since proximal origin was published has shown clear signatures of natural recombination.


For someone so deeply interested in this subject, you should watch the entire hearing. In nearly every instance Andersen is given to respond to an accusation or answer a question, he knocks it out of the park.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Forever alone? Attraction and keeping the girl chasing you - http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=131498033

You will never know your limits, unless you push yourself past the imaginary lines you have drawn in the sand.

Knee Dragger - '06 GSX-R750

Originally Posted By gwg77⏩

Again, second paragraph in, heexplicitly shuts down any lab scenarios.







^^Those words cannot be any more clear.


And nothing quite beats going on twitter and calling everyone a conspiracy theorist.

So just to be clear (pun intended), your explanation is that the authors forgot what they wrote on three other occasions in the same paper. Because that’s the implication of your interpretation.
“Clearly shows” is obviously meant to be ~ probable or highly probable.

Your entire argument hinges on what is at most a poor use of words.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Forever alone? Attraction and keeping the girl chasing you - http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=131498033

You will never know your limits, unless you push yourself past the imaginary lines you have drawn in the sand.

Knee Dragger - '06 GSX-R750

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."