curious check out the attached link...
This has little, if anything, to do with the current operetta over COVID-19...just sparked me to do a little searching.
Link: https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-blog/2019/september/in-neurogenetics-hoofbeats-mean-zebras-not-horses
Will listen tomorrow.
caught on secret video? He is an expert in the field, and he stated matter of factly that it was understood that COVID came from the Gain of Function research at the Wuhan lab. He is just one example.
It isn’t even credible to argue otherwise at this point. Thus, we now see the left pivoting to admit the possibility of what the censored speech over just a short time ago.
It was always so obvious that even Jon Stewart could see it.
Once again, the conservative news networks were correct and the MSM lied.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Wuhan Lab...should China ever 'Open its Books', then we'll know for sure...until then, keep on fantasizing...because that's all you've got.
I will use Occam's Razor. You can believe whatever political bullshit you want.
But, rest easy: I usually stay out of the Covid discussions, so I'm not a threat to your gaining votes for Dems in these discussions. I will just stop posting in this thread now.
(no message)
btw, don't be afraid to read the article I provided...these are world-class scientists from four different continents...probably not a "Liberal" among them...just scientists who have been doing this work for decades...LOOONG before Trump or COVID-19 ever showed up.
until China becomes transparent about its bio research, no one knows for sure about this...note that many, many human viruses have been proven to be of zoonotic origin...it's just how nature works.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Statistics...here's a review of COVID-19's origin that strongly suggests a zoonotic process.
There's nothing wrong with being suspicious...unless you try to assert it as reality.
Link: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220726/Researchers-pinpoint-multiple-zoonotic-origins-of-SARS-CoV-2.aspx
Two distinct strains emerging from different animals at the same time in the same market? And neither animal host ever identified? Hmmkay.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=67610
"Still, Worobey and his co-authors concede, even that evidence might not be enough to end this polarizing debate. “With the way that people have been able to just push aside any and all evidence that points away from a lab leak, I do fear that even if there were evidence from one of these samples that was full of red fox DNA and SARS-CoV-2 that people might say, ‘We still think it actually came from the handler of that red fox,’” Worobey says."
-------------------
Attached is the full article I provided back then...
Link: https://www.science.org/content/article/do-three-new-studies-add-proof-covid-19-s-origin-wuhan-animal-market
Just like when we first talked about it.
this point in time...for you to call the scientists' comments I presented "Ridiculous" is foolish...don't be foolish.
(no message)
We're supposed to believe the virus naturally originated in the exact same city as the lab studying the exact same coronavirus that was unleashed on the world. Okaaayyy...the odds of that are infinitesimal.
Other legitimate medical researchers dispute these findings. I'll go with Logic 101 on this.
great deal of experience in this field...that is a fact. Also, Wuhan is a HUGE city that draws people (with animals) from an equally huge area around the city. Animals are constantly...as we speak...exchanging viruses between them...it's always been that way...it will always be that way, which is why bio-research is done there and elsewhere (including in the U.S.) to make sure we're as prepared as possible for future threats to our well-being.
Don't play amateur virologist...place your trust in people who have dedicated their careers to this field...LONG BEFORE COVID-19 ever showed up.
Of course they have to know about the conclusions these researchers came up with and the science behind it, and they still disagree.
takes care of your fantasy...read it, including the links, and you'll be able to understand why.
I'd recommend doing a little 'fact checking' of your own on these folks before going "all in" on what they're pushing...just remember, as with the Docs in my family, the docs and scientists investigating such matters have been doing it all their careers...they didn't all suddenly flip a switch to become dastardly political operatives...that would be physically impossible...trust these guys, Mark.
btw, do you know of any reliable but low cost swing monitors?
Link: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/27/instagram-posts/dr-fauci-did-not-create-covid-19-thats-pants-on-fi/
is known for his propensity to lie on almost every topic that comes up. We would be remiss if we didn't consider that
hust like FOX he knew the truth but told lies instead.
(no message)
(no message)
What laws have been passed that deny someone's "lived reality?"
which institutions like the University of Notre Dame affords them.
Link: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Smug_infosheets_3.pdf
Of course you know that Notre Dame is a University that teaches young adults and the “Parental Rights in Education” bill deals specifically with children 9 and under so I'm not sure why you would try to make that comparison.
What exactly is discriminatory about the bill?
(no message)
But I have read the “Parental Rights in Education” bill which definitely does not target gay people's right to be recognized. How exactly is it discriminatory?
discussion....read it....btw, I've linked even more insight into why DeSantis' bill is discriminatory, targeted at a marginalized group (LGBTQ) and is viewed as persecuting them...read that as well.
Link: https://www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/FL%20Dont%20Say%20Gay%20KYR%20-%20Updated2022.06.pdf
Not only that, but it raised the ante for you because it defines persecution as a crime that is defined as "severe" discrimination. So now I'm not just curious what it is exactly in the bill that is discriminatory, but what it is in the bill that is "severely" discriminatory.
(no message)
'The act most controversially and most notably prohibits public schools from having "classroom discussion"[a] or giving "classroom instruction"[b] about sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through to third grade."
That's the entire gist of the bill. Links to misconstrued opinions don't answer the question at all. I'm looking for a specific piece of the bill that discriminates against anyone.
Here are two scenarios that are perfectly acceptable.
3rd grader: Who is in the picture on you desk?
Mr. Teacher. That's my husband.
3rd grader: Men can't have husbands.
Mr Teacher: I have a husband. You should talk with your parents about that later. We are doing math now.
4th grader: Who is in the picture on you desk?
Mr. Teacher. That's my husband.
4th grader: Men can't have husbands.
Mr Teacher (speaking to the class): Men can have husbands. Women can have wives. That's called being gay. Put down your math books so I can indoctrinate you into gender ideology.
The first scenario is acceptable and is not on anyway discriminatory. The second scenario, while wildly inappropriate, is acceptable under the bill.
This is a bill that gives parents of K-3 children the right to consent to what is being taught in a publicly funded classroom. Are you anti-consent? Are you pro-parental discrimination? Do you see that it's ridiculous to call this bill an antidiscrimanation bill for parents as it is to say it's discriminatory against trans people? Frankly, the fact that this bill has to exist is ridiculous.
I ask again, what exactly is in this bill that is discriminatory? If you think it's too vague and needs to be better defined, which is really the only criticism of the bill in the second article, fine. But what is discriminatory about it?
school districts with potential suits and/or terminations over vague, undefined standards...those suits can be brought by any parent at any time thus incurring large legal fees that districts may decide to avoid by simply firing the accused teacher.
As to your scenarios, who knows what words the child may use to describe the encounter with his/her teacher when they return home?...who knows how a very testy parent over this issue may react when hearing what Suzi or Johnny describe...accurately, or inaccurately?...this law can indeed create chaos...not just for teachers and school districts, but especially for the kids who are from LGBTQ households, or are themselves gay...note: like it or not, kids don't need to be "groomed" to be gay...it starts very, very early.
Fair enough. That's not relevant to this conversation though, is it?
You said Desantis demeans and persecutes marginalized people? I asked how. You said he passed discminatory bills. I asked what bills and what it is in those bills is discriminatory. After all of this discussion, I'm still confused about why you think Desantis demeans and persecutes marginalized people.
community, how can you not see the overt discrimination in RDS' bill...he is denying a targeted group their very existence in school classrooms by intimidating teachers and school administrations from even accidentally mentioning the topic of "Gayness", when outside the classroom, it's all anyone in FLA can talk about...thanks to him, btw. He has singled out the LGBTQ community for ridicule and alienation...this is discrimination and persecution.
RDS is a mean-spirited, political panderer...not fit to be President of these United States.
You're completely mischaracterizing the bill if you are going around telling people that teachers can't accidentally talk about gayness outside the classroom. You're completely mischaracterizing the bill if you are going around telling people that the bill forces people to deny their existence.
What is a tangible thing that you can point to in the bill and say, "that's discrimination."
(no message)
You don't get to make things up. You don't get to add things to the bill that aren't there. If you are going to say there is something discriminatory about the bill, you need to pull something directly out of the bill. It is total bullshit that you post links that fabricate the truth. It is total bullshit that you make a statement about persecution and you haven't been able to provide any evidence to support that claim after all this time.
What can you find in the bill that you can say is discriminatory?
(no message)
There are three things that anyone on this board knows.
1) There are lots of experts who suspect a lab leak.
2) There are lots of experts who suspect an animal host crossover.
3) It is incredibly important to find out the truth.
That’s all we know.
Lots of people suspect - wait for it! - a giant government conspiracy. But they’re fools.
We also know that the people telling us it was xenophobic to suspect a lab leak were playing politics and lying.
(no message)
I agree with what you say, but we have been saying it for years now. Now you come around when it is no longer a political disadvantage. Stop pretending. You supported Biden shutting down the investigation Trump started.
You also supported the censorship of scientific speech that we also called out to you and others.
At some point thereafter, Biden CDC folk made a half assed effort, and shut down all further investigation when China said “you can’t come in”. No effort to exert pressure. Nothing.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Conspiracies are so 2017 man.