[ad_1]
What does this mean, like Washington Post the real giver and Wall Street Journal writers wrote, that the lab’s loss of imagination has gained “reliability?”
Or, ask me: If the virus that causes Covid-19 did not jump from animals to humans, where did it come from?
Was it an animal virus that scientists collected to study and then produced by chance? The big bad thing is, did scientists do research to find a way to benefit from the natural virus, to reproduce it, and then to produce it by chance? Or worse than that, did he try to make a weapon that came out of nowhere? Worst of all: Did he do it on purpose to release guns?
The most difficult answer is: Probably not, but maybe not. And that’s the real problem here. The evidence has not changed since 2020. That evidence has always been incomplete, and may not be complete. History and science have shown that skipping an animal is far more likely than anything to bring / hide. The reason we are talking about is how people form their opinions around the evidence we have.
Unless all the frames are the same. You see, in real time, there are sometimes bad and confusing ways to find a better solution — that you will be responsible for global crime and scientific understanding. But you are also seeing the creation of uncertainty. Some of the people who are talking about the exit of the lab do not want an answer. They want to grow up and sometimes they can create, for local reasons, skepticism. Because then they can question the skepticism — in leaders, scientists, in practice — in order to have power. It has worked so well that even presidents and world leaders stay to answer.
The scientists who wrote the letter in Science do not think lab comparisons have found more (or less) since last spring. The evidence has not changed. As some of them told a New York Times, delayed speaking out while Trumpists promote anti-Chinese ideology, but still want the virology lab (and the country) to be safe.
But other writers went up. People with the right skills have spoken; so do the people without them — the people just asking questions on television, in a magazine, on Medium. These little visuals, the sudden turn of events, the initial illusion of resentment … all add up china, are they not? Don’t they?
When scientists do “We are not entirely sure,” he said, adding that their assessment of the event or incident also included the possibility that they might be wrong. Sapita 100%. Sometimes they think they can be more aggressive than others. This is the world of self-reliance, of mathematics and curves, of uncertain cultures. But non-scientists feel “we’re not entirely sure,” like “then you mean the opportunity exists?” It’s a crazy place among scientists — let’s say, readers — uncertainty is the definition of uncertainty in a normal human being. This is where “I just ask questions.” [wink]”They cry.
It’s a subtle difference. Tony Fauci says he wants to be sure, for example, he means that, yes, everything is the same, it is better to know than not to know – especially if that is how the political winds are blowing.
But when politicians such as theater and television viewers talk about this uncertainty, this skepticism, they are trying to achieve a legacy in this space in order to understand and open up to them. It is still alleged that the Chinese government is committing fraud here, such as war — and that even scientists think it is possible. Because if they seem to have scientific support, they can use that power elsewhere. They can hang shoes on Biden’s logistical regimes with Chinese terrorists to dispel their lies about elections, to try to curb voting, the January 6 attacks, and to try to get the world vaccinated against a disease they say they want to understand better.
[ad_2]
Source link
