It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HawkEyi
Nice articles but has the actual data full data being released to the public? the links you linked i already saw. They arent full data.
Are you a geneticist? Would you know what you were looking at? Do you have any comments on what is presented? Does it raise any red flags?
originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I like the title because there is not doubt in my mind that this was a GOF study gone bad. The real question is were these studies carried out to prevent a pandemic or cause one?
For me the logic behind creating the monster to be able to fight it makes no sense unless they are just using the excuse of creating novel viruses for vaccine studies as a work around for the biological weapons treaty that developed nations have signed.
With the close ties to the Chinese military and our own military, I can only assume that this was created with biological warfare in mind, not to protect the general population from a pandemic. I think maybe it was close to being their latest and greatest bio-weapon but due to mishandling the research, it escaped before it was ready for use. Perhaps this is the new M.A.D. strategy or made for some preemptive strike, but IMO it was designed for war not for preventing a pandemic.
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: anonentity
So, the GOP process is to find a single dissenting scientist, and then use what ever they think as if it were the scientific consensus?
There's a couple of things this 'expert' said that had me puzzled. But I'll have to do some research to find out if he had a legitimate reason for thinking those things.
originally posted by: Justoneman
Nope C, the medias response is to stomp out opposition , get them canceled, fired and ridiculed. Nuremburg 2 will settle the score but way too late for those poisoned by this dangerous experiment.
They cant handle the truth and are charlatans. You are their dupe or their shill. Not sure which yet, but one of those.
originally posted by: Ksihkehe
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: anonentity
So, the GOP process is to find a single dissenting scientist, and then use what ever they think as if it were the scientific consensus?
There's a couple of things this 'expert' said that had me puzzled. But I'll have to do some research to find out if he had a legitimate reason for thinking those things.
Yeah, and the left's process is to always say there's broad consensus on the science and pretend everybody agrees.
I'll wait for for some better data to make a decision either way, but the fact that they have tried to manipulate perception doesn't bode well for those that think nothing was amiss.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Ksihkehe
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: anonentity
So, the GOP process is to find a single dissenting scientist, and then use what ever they think as if it were the scientific consensus?
There's a couple of things this 'expert' said that had me puzzled. But I'll have to do some research to find out if he had a legitimate reason for thinking those things.
Yeah, and the left's process is to always say there's broad consensus on the science and pretend everybody agrees.
I'll wait for for some better data to make a decision either way, but the fact that they have tried to manipulate perception doesn't bode well for those that think nothing was amiss.
So, you will accept whatever is the consensus, whenever there are no dissenting views left at all.
Is that ever likely?
In regards to science, I'll go with the consensus view, right now.
If the consensus view changes, I'll go with that too. That's how science works. As new evidence comes to light, it changes the consensus view. Scientific consensus is evidence based.