No, it's nothing about myself nor do I claim that I am right. I firstly believed it was a zoonosis, too. The sky video is proper investigative journalism. It is reasonable and things make perfectly sense. The pieces presented there do perfectly match. There were times when such a video was taken down, immediately. Nobody even could consider it could have been from the lab! It simply offers certainty the virus came from the WIV. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything 'around' is in your mind not in mine. If you want to point at issues at the journalism presented there, pick it out and confront it with other knowledge. I simply had a problem just saying "This is crap". It's not about me being right or wrong, it's about the truth what really had happened. I invited the readers here to watch it (and to verify the contents on one's own). Nothing more. I just added it confirmed my findings after I was able to break out from the media manipulation making me firstly believing it was a zoonosis. There is one strong argument! The virus has got spikes which have the greatest affinity to human ACE2 receptors. Stronger than for each other animal! So how could be host 0 an animal then? (which would be a zoonosis). This simple argument should make people rethink the zoonosis hypothesis alone.
So Your talking about zoonosis .......... and speculating that corona didnt ' jump ' from animals to humans .......... it was helped ? But you havent got any ( real ) evidence ? You see corona , a virus with a structure ........ and you claim that the difference between other similar viri is that this one was geneticly manipulated ........ and then escaped . Can you show that ? Physicly ? Can you show that that change / difference is man made and not evil-ution ? ......... = not a natural mutation in an animal or in a human ? @ The lab If and when a problem ocurs in a society with a virus ......... it gets sent to that kind of lab to investigate it . That doesnt mean that they made it = Did they make it or was it sent / given to them to investigate it ? @ The video ......... All i see is a woman with B cups .
Is the following fix I did to your quote correct @Yen ? Did you mean 'conspiracy theory' in place of 'conspiracy'?
LOL you lost your temper. Who doesn't. This zelensky's adherent has the habit of attack with baseless arguments any information different to mainstream/government media. This case-sensitive must have a hidden personal agenda.
There are two elements to this. The dishonest element as is portrayed 100% of the time by people who want to believe everything the government tells them to believe is that people are saying the lab leak itself was a conspiracy, act of bio-war. Some people believe this, good luck proving it either way. Maybe in time. The honest element never acknowledged by the people who want to believe everything government tells them to believe is that people are saying the lab leak cover-up was a conspiracy. After three years and all the media gaslighting before 2023, this is undeniable. I don't think you're an honest actor, but if you actually want to catch up on the three years of information you seem to have been missing out on, this is a good start https://www.bitchute.com/playlist/Ojbhuq5kOMmN/
@ Opulent_Maelstrom , tzuyd and co . I read on s**tshoot that its a scientific fact that if you turn round fast enough you can dissapear up your own arse !!!!!
Zoonosis means a natural jump from animal to human (mutually)! You obviously don't know about scientific means such like evidence. You are the one that must show evidence for a zoonosis. Hypothesis is first, evidence second! As soon as one has a proper hypothesis it needs either evidence or falsification. Until then it remains a hypothesis. So when you say it is a zoonosis you have to get evidence for that When others say it is a lab leak they have to get evidence for that. A zoonosis is absent and a lab leak is absent. Those 2 states are TRUE WITHOUT the need of proof......until proven otherwise! No well...Lol. The difference / context I wanted to point out: To blame others for being a conspiracy (theory) adherent is different than to (still) THINK it is a conspiracy. The people you mentioned just have their opinions saying it is a conspiracy. They did not politicize and censor science. A major time stamp at the video is 35:49min onwards. Yes I did. Understandable being working in a research lab myself...
You saw reason to edit your post several times .......... I'll wait a bit to reply ........... so that you can read what you wrote again and edit the rest of the crap out .
Yes, sorry. I wrote my reply during work and got distracted several times and had to edit it. To be clear: You can say: We don't know if it's a zoonosis or a lab leak. Doing that you rely on the fact that the non-existence / absence of both is TRUE until proven otherwise. Also you should know each evidence of either zoonosis or lab leak falsifies the opposite! The video I have posted is full of evidences for a lab leak = full of falsifications of the zoonosis hypothesis! Never had it the other way around.
The major problem is that many people who seemingly 'rely' on science have no clue about basic terms. The claim for proof, to fiddle with terms like evidence, proof, hypothesis, truth, 'there is no proof', and so on. Even correlation, probability, significance and causality. They don't know that there is truth without the need for proof. They don't know the difference of evidence and proof. They don't know that there also is German "Evidenz", which can be translated as self-evidence. They do not know what significance means in relation to evidence and proof. They don't know that hypothesis H0 is always TRUE until falsified and so on. H0 is always like "There is no difference". When it comes to scientific matters there are a lot of rants....."Prove it!", as a last resort. But actually it is an abuse of scientific means, cried out loud only to say my opinion has more value than yours.
@ game , set and match ---- > YOU CLAIM ---- > >The truth is out and certainty arrived at the public. >It came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. >This summarizes anything. It also confirms what I had posted here and there. >Peter Daszak was a liar. SHOW ME A CLAIM I HAVE MADE THAT ISNT TRUE .. SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE CLAIMED THAT ANYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY I SAID TO YOU ---- > >MMN Science = ........ take a piece of paper and write at the top ........ Assertion ......... and then under that write in as short and clear sentance what EXACTLY you claim . >Then under that write your proofs . Short and clear . One after another . >Without telling me X times about a book ? >Then we can look at the proofs and add more / shoot them down . >The only thing that interests me is .......... truth ......... facts ......... clarity . @ Flucht nach vorn >Understandable being working in a research lab myself.. Mengele worked in a lab
----- > Scientific method The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3] Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[a][4] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[5] The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis.[6]: Book I, [6.54] pp.372, 408 Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to a remote mountaintop to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[8][9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Empirical evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence Scientific evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence[/b][/b]
@ small words ....... explaining things to morons ......... and reducing things to their smallest terms in order for them to understand ........ wich i do ........... to help YOU understand the crap your talking ........ not because i am thick ---- > Reductionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism > Understandable being working in a research lab myself... Do you recomend just water ? or just Prill , or Prill and water mixed together ? Amen
That's why it is that much important to go after each evidence (be it a weak one only) which would speak for a lab leak! It's unbelievable that scientists who found evidences for a lab leak got censored publishing their findings. I mean: Why was there a period of time where it was only allowed to publish pro zoonosis hypothesis? How could science be obfuscated that much at all? Mengele and co must never happen again...but I am afraid they still are doing gain of function.
Let me add some German translations because I suppose there are German readers. (For a better understanding). Evidence = Indiz, Beweismittel (but this expression frequently leads to confusion with proof) Proof = Beweis Something that 'proves' itself as being true. "A false argument cannot be true". This statement is (German): evident. Evidence refers to certain facts or material that helps to establish existence of a fact whereas proof is sum of evidence. Evidences are always certain facts! Can also be certain objects found. Proof has to be determined. The more evidences you have the more certainty! To 'change' that the zoonosis hypothesis (or another one) has simply to get more evidences. For now there is certainty that it (the existence of a lab leak) is true. Also science knows hypotheses which are always true H0 at first. This is a general determination: "There is no difference between population A and B" Or here:"Neither a zoonosis nor a lab leak are existent." H0 plays a role when it comes to prove that something applied has an effect compared to another group at which is wasn't applied. Therefore you have to show that an alternative hypothesis H1 applies statistically more, usually 95% or greater.
Another theory that has been considered as conspiracy has now got evidence of correlation! Vaccine batch dependent serious adverse events (Pfizer COVID vaccine)! Batch‐dependent safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID‐19 vaccine - Schmeling - European Journal of Clinical Investigation - Wiley Online Library Not only that vaccine making plants had started vaccine production without proper QM and QA....a Danish study found out that there are 3 correlations. The blue linear regression line which made 4.22% of all vaccinations in Denmark was responsible for 70.78% of all SAEs (SeriousAdverseEvents) and 47.15% of SAE related deaths!!! In other words: Not only the 'vaccine' itself (mRNA), ALSO batch related quality issues / impurities lead to serious adverse events also death. So here was really the Russian roulette. If you had belonged to an unlucky one (blue correlation line) instead of the yellow one for instance your statistics would have been like: Yellow: 0.38% all SAE, 1.01% serious SAE and 0.86% SAE related death. Blue: 70.78% all SAE, 27.39% serious SAE and 47.15% SAE related death. THIS is a huge difference. A group of batches was that bad that it caused 70.78% of all serious adverse events and almost HALF of vaccine related DEATHS! This is shocking! Not only that mRNA vaccines which are in fact gene therapeutics had issues, also their quality had! Some batches had a much higher associated death rate than COVID itself! What makes me upset most is that obviously nobody cares about! The virus came from the lab and we had vaccine batches which were dirty and sold anyway! The vaccines had more adverse events than announced by the makers. The vaccines had far less effectiveness than announced by the makers. The quality had a great variety. NORMALLY such batches never would leave and pass QM!!! It's about greed and money and ignorance. We have a lab escape of a gain of function manipulated virus AND a pharmaceutical scandal which is far greater than Thalidomide! Nobody cares. One more time: Congrats to those who said no to the shot! It simply was a reasonable decision. A complete new 'kind' of 'vaccine' which had dangerously low quality batches.
Self-fulfilling prophecy needs no effort - how very convenient... By your own words: you can not "see the light" if all you do is see black everywhere you look and don't ever make even a minimal, let alone EQUAL effort to see the other side of Humanity. Poor. Piss poor! @Yen - you operate by 2 standards: 1) lenient when it comes to your prejudices 2) very stringent when it comes to ideas you do not "think" are possible. But there are people who do know what they are talking about, probably much more than you. I posted the articles and interviews with such experts, who actually did do their research, so go figure... To all "conspiracy theorists": easy, all too easy. Proving it - not so easy. It takes a lot of research to gather the evidence etc. If we had it - we would know it by now. Why? Well... There are so many people now who have forgotten exactly what we had to deal with when the virus was deadly and they like playing "wild-arse heroes" now... I find it ridiculous to the extreme!!!
It is 'not so' easy, because proof has to be determined. Evidences, though, are facts. The one that claims for proof has to determine the criteria for the proof. And then it's quite easy. Either the evidences meet the determined criteria for proof or not. That's the entire issue with proof. And that's also the reason why a 'bunch' of people come to the result something is proven and another 'bunch' to 'it is not'. They simply have different ideas of criteria of proof. Firstly get consensus about the criteria THEN have a look if the evidences meet them. You find that at science and at courts. When I argued for the lab leak hypothesis I avoided to use the term proof. I spoke about a bunch of evidences which result to certainty of a existence of a lab leak. Let's just reduce that to one statement, you surely could agree with: The other topic:"Huge quality differences of Pfizer vaccine batches" has a great scope!!! It for instance clarifies the inconsistencies found all over the world of 'how' the vaccines did perform! Statements such as the vaccines had a greater chance of doing harm than COVID itself.....or the vaccines did more harm than good can now coexist as truth with "they saved lives and the side effects were negligible!!!" The same applied to Thalidomide. But there it's not a quality issue, it is the drug itself, the contra indication. Either way. There has to be an investigation against Pfizer as well!!!
A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4496137 Fortunately, the dailysceptic.org website saved a copy of the paper here. Now, judge for yourselves whether the study has wrong conclusions or wrong methodology or anything at all.