Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

The official COVID-19/Coronavirus Discussion Thread...aka I hope I don't get the Rona

ChicagoFigure said:
You're first post to me was asking if someone who isn't an expert can come to a conclusion.

I believe if all your sources are coming from experts that yes u can come to your own conclusion. If u think ppl are too stupid to understand that may be more projection than anything else
Click to expand...

Anyone can come to a conclusion...that don't mean shit. I specifically said a succinct conclusion. As in one that would actually make sense and be able to be defended regardless of which side you end up on...If this past year hasn't shown you that the vast majority of people are too stupid to do that then you've got alot of faith in people that isn't really earned. So yeah I don't really have faith that the same society that was pushing the idea that Covid was some hoax created by Verizon to get 5G in your system or that the vaccine is an attempt to implant a microchip or the same people who now think JFK JR is going to come back and be VP for President Trump are also the same people who without any medical background can read and correctly interpret a piece of work conducted by people who do a job that only a small percentage of the human population is actually trained to do.
 
BlackRain said:
Anyone can come to a conclusion...that don't mean shit. I specifically said a succinct conclusion. As in one that would actually make sense and be able to be defended regardless of which side you end up on...If this past year hasn't shown you that the vast majority of people are too stupid to do that then you've got alot of faith in people that isn't really earned. So yeah I don't really have faith that the same society that was pushing the idea that Covid was some hoax created by Verizon to get 5G in your system or that the vaccine is an attempt to implant a microchip or the same people who now think JFK JR is going to come back and be VP for President Trump are also the same people who without any medical background can read and correctly interpret a piece of work conducted by people who do a job that only a small percentage of the human population is actually trained to do.
Click to expand...
Yes experts come to succinct conclusions that contradict some of the guys u see on tv. Don't know what the rest of your post has to do with that.

If your conclusions are drawn from experts that's great. Even if they contradict the conclusion I come up with from the experts I followed.
 
ALLBUILDINGSMATTER! said:
Context absolutely matters. Let’s put this entire conversation into context.

You had NO clue what Paul and Fauci were arguing over. You even tried to dismiss the study they were arguing over because it was from 2017, not knowing that’s what they were arguing over.

All dude has been asking you to do is base your opinions off the study . You’ve done everything but that.
Click to expand...
7 pages bc all I did was ask for rand Pauls receipts. Yikes. Y'all should holla at CNN panel
 
ChicagoFigure said:
Yes experts come to succinct conclusions that contradict some of the guys u see on tv. Don't know what the rest of your post has to do with that.

If your conclusions are drawn from experts that's great. Even if they contradict the conclusion I come up with from the experts I followed.
Click to expand...

Because I didn't ask if experts can come to a conclusion. I said people without their background reading and interpreting the same information. There's a reason why people trust the person who did the research more than the person who simply read the paper. Especially when the person who just did the reading is known for twisting information up to fit what they want it to.
 
BlackRain said:
Because I didn't ask if experts can come to a conclusion. I said people without their background reading and interpreting the same information. There's a reason why people trust the person who did the research more than the person who simply read the paper. Especially when the person who just did the reading is known for twisting information up to fit what they want it to.
Click to expand...
So what we arguing for? I'm just asking to see the paper
 
These guys still graspin' at every straw ey?

These anti vaxxers who don't have a specific reason are the absolute worst I swear. If you believe there's a chip in the vax or something dumb like that fair enough I get it but these "hmmm something is up" guys smh

Floodin' the thread with their fear and doubts tryna convince people they're bein' independent thinkers but really these guys are blindly scared

Today it's Rand Paul (lmao crazy how Rand fuckin' Paul is a good faith actor now smh) tomorrow after the Paul stuff has been debunked these anti vaxxers will be on to something else.

This what happens when you're blindly biased against the media.

Fix up and learn how to consume the news @anti vaxxers
 
journals.plos.org

Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus

Author summary Increasing evidence has been gathered to support the bat origin of SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in the past decade. However, none of the currently known bat SARSr-CoVs is thought to be the direct ancestor of SARS-CoV. Herein, we report the identification of a diverse group of bat...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
First the definition of gain of function research
Screenshot_20210722-091006.png


NIH funding
Screenshot_20210722-090725.png

Check the 2nd highlight, they constructed infectious bacterial chromosomes using genome backbone and variants of bat Covid virus samples. The rest of the highlights provide results of their studies infecting hela cells (human cell line) to see how it would react
Screenshot_20210722-084113.png


More methodology for infecting human cells
Screenshot_20210722-090302.png

So clearly they were messing with the virus testing it's transmissibility to human cells. According to this article NIH didn't consider it gain of function:
Screenshot_20210722-093149.png

Seems like a lil word play there like...."our goal wasn't to make the virus more transmissible, so if it happens while we study its transmissibility (🙄)....well....that wasn't our intention, so it's not gain of function."

But it definitely applies to the definition posted at the top of this post.

Last, if the strain that started the pandemic isn't in this study, Rand Paul doesn't have a leg to stand on, even if it can be argued what they did was gain of function.



This just my interpretation.
 
Last edited:
ChicagoFigure said:
journals.plos.org

Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus

Author summary Increasing evidence has been gathered to support the bat origin of SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in the past decade. However, none of the currently known bat SARSr-CoVs is thought to be the direct ancestor of SARS-CoV. Herein, we report the identification of a diverse group of bat...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
First the definition of gain of function research
View attachment 593289


NIH funding
View attachment 593281

Check the 2nd highlight, they constructed infectious bacterial chromosomes using genome backbone and variants of bat Covid virus samples. The rest of the highlights provide results of their studies infecting hela cells (human cell line) to see how it would react
View attachment 593284


More methodology for infecting human cells
View attachment 593288

So clearly they were messing with the virus testing it's transmissibility to human cells. According to this article NIH didn't consider it gain of function:
View attachment 593313

Seems like a lil word play there like...."our goal wasn't to make the virus more transmissible, so if it happens while we study its transmissibility (🙄)....well....that wasn't our intention, so it's not gain of function."

But it definitely applies to the definition posted at the top of this post.

Last, if the strain that started the pandemic isn't in this study, Rand Paul doesn't have a leg to stand on, even if it can be argued what they did was gain of function.



This just my interpretation.
Click to expand...
So did Fauci cause Covid-19 or not, which was Rand Paul's claim?
 
TheNightKing said:
So did Fauci cause Covid-19 or not, which was Rand Paul's claim?
Click to expand...
The basis of their back and forth was fauci denying gain of function research was conducted. When rand Paul defined it, he still denied it. Look up the definition yourself tell me what u think.

Did fauci cause the pandemic? I don't know. Were any of the strains studied the one that infected the world? It depends on that answer.

What does seem obvious is he's lying about funding gain of function research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top