LaxPower Back-Up Stick

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 6:56 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 8:37 am
A sharper take and a better choice of words for me should have been “scientific consensus”. The Princeton guy is in fact part of the established scientific community.
BTW, the Stanford guy is too.

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.
So you agree "consensus" is a moving target?

How can you tell, especially with the current politically charged Covid science environment, if many people in scientific fields aren't afraid to give their honest opinions? Couldn't those people be cancelled and/or lose funding if they veer outside of the narrative (consensus) the people in power have established and demand and with the support of mainstream corp media?

How can you be so certain your idea of "consensus" is accurate?

We get “science” wrong. But proving science wrong comes with new evidence that gets validated with consensus. The Princeton guy agreed with the Hopkins guy that he could be wrong. The consensus is that he is wrong.
How on earth did you arrive at that?

No matter how much energy they bring into trying to manipulate public discourse, and how optimized their tweet threads are to mislead non-experts who have not had the time, energy, will or skill to look deeper into the topic, they can not change the scientific evidence available

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Philipp Markolin, PhD
@protagonistfuture
·
Former data analyst @ETH. Science blogger debunking social-media empowered conspiracy myths in our information age. Also arguing for the human dimension in our technological future. Usually trying something new.

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 3:54 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

and released by Xi on the West.
Diabolical

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:14 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 3:54 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

and released by Xi on the West.
Diabolical

You two snuggling, again?

No one here said it was a weapon solely for the west and no one said the genome emphatically indicated markers of human generation.

Did they ever stop Mydoom or kinda neat how Stuxnet auto-deleted itself after infection. Anti-virus (mRNA) solves this, but like most, remnants still remain, like in mydoom...active still today in society. We are more connected in all things than we often care to admit.

Yes, I know, software and genome are different, but how much do we really know, other than that which we trust is fed to us.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:57 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:14 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 3:54 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

and released by Xi on the West.
Diabolical

You two snuggling, again?

No one here said it was a weapon solely for the west and no one said the genome emphatically indicated markers of human generation.

Did they ever stop Mydoom or kinda neat how Stuxnet auto-deleted itself after infection. Anti-virus (mRNA) solves this, but like most, remnants still remain, like in mydoom...active still today in society. We are more connected in all things than we often care to admit.

Yes, I know, software and genome are different, but how much do we really know, other than that which we trust is fed to us.

Some guy on the internet knows.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:16 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:57 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:14 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 3:54 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

and released by Xi on the West.
Diabolical

You two snuggling, again?

No one here said it was a weapon solely for the west and no one said the genome emphatically indicated markers of human generation.

Did they ever stop Mydoom or kinda neat how Stuxnet auto-deleted itself after infection. Anti-virus (mRNA) solves this, but like most, remnants still remain, like in mydoom...active still today in society. We are more connected in all things than we often care to admit.

Yes, I know, software and genome are different, but how much do we really know, other than that which we trust is fed to us.

Some guy on the internet knows.

Exactly….just need to figure out which one.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 9:41 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Source graphic appears to be from:

Philipp Markolin
·

Follow
Published in

Advances in biological science
·
4 min read
·
Jan 13, 2023

Summary on his medium blog at: https://medium.com/advances-in-biologic ... b6305f06f2

Something about the authorp:

Philipp Markolin, PhD
@protagonistfuture
·
Former data analyst @ETH. Science blogger debunking social-media empowered conspiracy myths in our information age. Also arguing for the human dimension in our technological future. Usually trying something new.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:27 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:27 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:25 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:27 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:25 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:27 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:36 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:25 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:27 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:00 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:36 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:25 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:27 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:35 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:00 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:36 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:25 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:27 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

The folks outside the establishment should do the “reviewing”.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:30 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:35 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:00 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:36 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:25 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 8:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:27 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:14 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:20 am Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

The folks outside the establishment should do the “reviewing”.

Straight out of a FR college kid trying to impress a girl type of thinking