Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What are you talking about? Can you elaborate for our benefit?
Sorry, thought everyone knew about this tactic. The most famous example was the fake Trump-Russia collusion story but this video illustrates how it was used with Justice Kavanaugh.
Conspiracy theories operate on the basis of a fallacy, as in it is up to other people to disprove it, not for them to prove it. Any evidence disproving it automatically is either false, or part of the cover up. There is never any winning about it, it is what they want to believe.
This is about feelings, not about logic or rationality. A conspiracy theory satisfies the urge of people with low self esteem to think they are "in on it", one of the privileged few. Same underlying motivation for those with extreme political or religious belief systems.
This is about feelings, not about logic or rationality. A conspiracy theory satisfies the urge of people with low self esteem to think they are "in on it", one of the privileged few.
That describes most of the mainstream media, sadly. They and their DNC masters find a "victim"; use, abuse, exploit, kick to the curb. "Thanks for your service, the check’s in the mail".
You have to read the whole Nature Medicine article. It says there is not enough evidence to swing the argument in favor of one hypothesis or another. There are multiple hypotheses of how it may have occurred, but only two scenarios would include the intent to poison a population and quality as conspiracy theories. Accidental release of virus probably does not qualify as a conspiracy theory any more than the virus mutation originating in nature. It's very doubtful it was released intentionally by the Chinese, which is one conspiracy theory. The other theory would be a foreign agent working in the labs, which is very unlikely in that the disease mainly affects the elderly and has a low death rate.
You have to read the whole Nature Medicine article. It says there is not enough evidence to swing the argument in favor of one hypothesis or another.
This is the excerpt from the discussion you're referring to.
Quote:
The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.
Given how badly it's written, who knows exactly what the authors mean here. My interpretation is.
1. There is sufficient evidence to reject the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was created artificially.
2. There is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the various hypotheses on its natural origin.
3. Similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses in nature are evidence against its artificial creation.
The standard of writing in the rest of the article is not much better. It's very disappointing for a Nature-associated journal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
