You dont know this.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/th...-disagreement/
And gain of function itself has a rather difficult definition, even for molecular biologists.
But I would agree to this, gain of function looks closely into how virus jump species.
So you do not go along with the scientist FOX just put up.
The one you praised? You said you dont NECESSARILY agree with her?
So you now could go either way? What is it?
I am unequivocally saying the virus came from a natural source. And that it was NOT released by a lab, it had already been established in at least China.
Because this is what the literature says to me.
Yes he did or at the very least he implied it.I never claimed the Chinese purposefully released the virus into the world. Nothing I linked claimed the Chinese purposely released the virus into the world. Darrin never claimed no one made the claim the Chinese virologist made.You are off your ing rocker and should seek help. You constantly create scenarios in your head that NEVER happened.
Yes, I believe the Chinese genetically modified the virus and it somehow escaped from WIV causing the Covid pandemic. Unlike you, my story never changed.
Are you done lying for the night?
So the laughing emoji means I feel so embarrassed that I might not have heard about it?Is there a "lab release" theory I haven't heard about yet?
And "it" involves a purposeful release. But good try by Trumpsters sticking together yet disagreeing.
Well, you found one Chinese virologist that believes that. But, she contradicted herself and has an obvious axe to grind with CCP.
The one I praised?
No he didn't. Something is seriously wrong with you.
You absolutely legitimized her.The one I praised?
I would call that praise.
She must be someone very important with all those degrees and then getting invited on FOX?
Quit trying to play a victim you lying fck.
You want to get back to Darrin on how she contradicted herself now?
He most certainly did.
Something is seriously wrong with you.
He did not think this theory existed.
"Well you found ONE" Like this is a rare occurrence after he said he did not know the theory existed.
gtfoh
Read the fkn p.osts
I posted her background from YOUR link after YOU asked why Fox would interview her.
The only person that has been lying is you, and you've done it publicly and exposed yourself as a lying fool to the entire board.
You've lost your mind. Something has happened to you in the last few days. Seriously seek help.
Seek mental health help immediately.
Says the guy who is trying to tell me what Darrin thinks....
Read dumbass.
And FOX is interviewing her because it fits the dumbass red narrative. Not because she has unearthed some fantastic theory.
Again, do you know what a gadfly is? thats her.
You got yourself in too deep and now are trying to find a way out.
Something has happened to me? Because I happen to understand this particular literature and weighed in on it, something has happened to me?
Qanon says something has happened to me with zero self introspection.
Yeah keep going with that.
The discussion is not going your way Q man.
For the past two days you have been constantly lying so yes, something has happened to you.
Long COVID patients in this study were 3x more likely to die and much more likely to suffer a range of serious illnesses.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2802095Results The study population included 13 435 individuals with PCC and 26 870 individuals with no evidence of COVID-19 (mean [SD] age, 51 [15.1] years; 58.4% female). During follow-up, the PCC cohort experienced increased health care utilization for a wide range of adverse outcomes: cardiac arrhythmias (relative risk [RR], 2.35; 95% CI, 2.26-2.45), pulmonary embolism (RR, 3.64; 95% CI, 3.23-3.92), ischemic stroke (RR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.98-2.52), coronary artery disease (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.70-1.88), heart failure (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.84-2.10), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.88-2.00), and asthma (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.86-2.03). The PCC cohort also experienced increased mortality, as 2.8% of individuals with PCC vs 1.2% of controls died, implying an excess death rate of 16.4 per 1000 individuals.
Conclusions and Relevance This case-control study leveraged a large commercial insurance database and found increased rates of adverse outcomes over a 1-year period for a PCC cohort surviving the acute phase of illness. The results indicate a need for continued monitoring for at-risk individuals, particularly in the area of cardiovascular and pulmonary management.
So you want to forget when the discussion started.
This does discussion is more than two days worth.
I told you what I believe and what I gather you believe by your statements and posts., which has clearly changed to where I don’t know what you believe. So tell me clearly what you believe. (If you can still understand my writing on a cell phone.)
care to revise your spoon fed conclusions, TSA?
which right media outlet misled you on this?
The debate over masks’ effectiveness in fighting the spread of the coronavirus intensified recently when a respected scientific nonprofit said its review of studies assessing measures to impede the spread of viral illnesses found it was “uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.”
Now the organization, Cochrane, says the way it summarized the review was unclear and imprecise, and that the way some people interpreted it was wrong.
“Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation,” Karla Soares-Weiser, the editor in chief of The Cochrane Library, said in a statement.
“The review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses,” Soares-Weiser said, adding, “given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.”
She said that “this wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize,” and that Cochrane would revise the summary.
Soares-Weiser also said, though, that one of the lead authors of the review even more seriously misinterpreted its finding on masks by saying in an interview that it proved “there is just no evidence that they make any difference.” In fact, Soares-Weiser said, “that statement is not an accurate representation of what the review found.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.htmlMichael D. Brown, a doctor and academic who serves on the Cochrane editorial board and made the final decision on the review, told me the review couldn’t arrive at a firm conclusion because there weren’t enough high-quality randomized trials with high rates of mask adherence.
The discussion is more than two days worth. Your constant lying started 3 days ago.
I've already told you what I believe and you can go back and find it while sifting through your lies.
Tell me again.
Its changed.
Hypocritical liar. I can’t keep up with your changes.
Here you go lying again.
It never changed.
I can't keep up with your lies.
Then give the board your theory liar?
You can’t even do this because you have backtracked so many times.
When you lie this much it becomes a tangled web, for you AND everyone else.
So your theory please.
The irony of you bringing up being misled and then immediately posting a link with that headline
"one of the lead authors of the review even more seriously misinterpreted its finding on masks by saying in an interview that it proved “there is just no evidence that they make any difference.”
Please TSA.
And with your OWN words.
You can give your evidence later.
No copy pasta ala Q chef.
I haven't lied about anything. I haven't backtracked on anything, yet another lie from you.
The only one that has been lying is you.
I have already given you my theory, sift through all your lies and find it if you want.
you were led by the nose and shown up by "gold standard" CochraneThe irony of you bringing up being misled and then immediately posting a link with that headline
There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
