I plan additional follow up, but for now, I just want to note that it is symptomatic of the cliquish and unethical and actually unscientific nature, paradoxically, of most of academia. Frankly, this is such a surprise to me, as my major professor, Dr. Loren Snyder, would have corrected this error as would I. I simply do not understand why, as multiple folks have told me, this is now the norm.
Isn't experimental evolution precisely the relevant field for this question? It comes down to whether the virus emerged through natural evolution in the wild or artificial evolution in the lab. Someone with expertise in the capabilities of evolution would be able to shed light on which scenario is most likely to explain the virus' origin.
I am starting to see what you mean when you say your work was plagiarized. It does look like there is a concerted effort by the powers that be to control the narrative around the lab leak by creating their own 'lab leak' theorists.
It's also not right that they bring up your past. Completely irrelevant to the question at hand, and smacks of they have something to hide so they dodge the question with irrelevant accusations.
Lol. Comedy gold. "You remained silent, because you're some combination of stupid and spineless." And then when that "Good German" Sherlock so predictably referenced your past incarceration, I thoroughly, THOROUGHLY, I say, enjoyed your rejoinder of "Yes, because being involved with a teenage girl is definitely in the same moral universe as millions and millions of innocent dead people." Touché.
I suspect much of Sherlock's inability to grok what an unctuous monster he is by his silence and failure to champion the truth when he has a moral obligation to do so, is explained by his declaring he's an "ardent atheist" (ardent -- lol), which is followed by a litany of the most self-serving virtual signaling imaginable (oh, he's so concerned by all the injustice in the world that he can't do a damned thing about except support some politicians). He fears no judgment from his Creator for failing to do what is right. (But God will not hold him blameless. Proverbs 24:12) He proudly emphasized how he pulled himself up from the working class and is now "fairly successful" at a top university. He has no intention of jeopardizing his comfortable little life, despite his Serenity Prayer asking for "the courage to change the things [he] can". Yep. Spineless.
No surprise that Sherlock would be a "willing executioner" to protect such a financially rewarding position in life and to fit in with his urbane colleagues, and even awkwardly attempt to defend one (blatant sucking up to Relman). Sherlock needs to have a midnight visit from the equivalent of Marley's ghost, or he, too, will end up wearing the chains he forged in life.
I plan additional follow up, but for now, I just want to note that it is symptomatic of the cliquish and unethical and actually unscientific nature, paradoxically, of most of academia. Frankly, this is such a surprise to me, as my major professor, Dr. Loren Snyder, would have corrected this error as would I. I simply do not understand why, as multiple folks have told me, this is now the norm.
Isn't experimental evolution precisely the relevant field for this question? It comes down to whether the virus emerged through natural evolution in the wild or artificial evolution in the lab. Someone with expertise in the capabilities of evolution would be able to shed light on which scenario is most likely to explain the virus' origin.
I am starting to see what you mean when you say your work was plagiarized. It does look like there is a concerted effort by the powers that be to control the narrative around the lab leak by creating their own 'lab leak' theorists.
It's also not right that they bring up your past. Completely irrelevant to the question at hand, and smacks of they have something to hide so they dodge the question with irrelevant accusations.
The Chinese aren’t the only ones who steal intellectual property. You have a right to be angry. 😡 I hope your expose is widely read.
Lol. Comedy gold. "You remained silent, because you're some combination of stupid and spineless." And then when that "Good German" Sherlock so predictably referenced your past incarceration, I thoroughly, THOROUGHLY, I say, enjoyed your rejoinder of "Yes, because being involved with a teenage girl is definitely in the same moral universe as millions and millions of innocent dead people." Touché.
I suspect much of Sherlock's inability to grok what an unctuous monster he is by his silence and failure to champion the truth when he has a moral obligation to do so, is explained by his declaring he's an "ardent atheist" (ardent -- lol), which is followed by a litany of the most self-serving virtual signaling imaginable (oh, he's so concerned by all the injustice in the world that he can't do a damned thing about except support some politicians). He fears no judgment from his Creator for failing to do what is right. (But God will not hold him blameless. Proverbs 24:12) He proudly emphasized how he pulled himself up from the working class and is now "fairly successful" at a top university. He has no intention of jeopardizing his comfortable little life, despite his Serenity Prayer asking for "the courage to change the things [he] can". Yep. Spineless.
No surprise that Sherlock would be a "willing executioner" to protect such a financially rewarding position in life and to fit in with his urbane colleagues, and even awkwardly attempt to defend one (blatant sucking up to Relman). Sherlock needs to have a midnight visit from the equivalent of Marley's ghost, or he, too, will end up wearing the chains he forged in life.