Pretty funny how no journal wanted to touch it and when it became OK to talk about, they had no problem publishing it. If it was "boring" or bad research, why would it suddenly get published?
I repeat: the authors have absolutely no adequate evidence at all the journals bounced their article because of censorship.
It is normal for papers to be rejected multiple times before a journal will accept them. A lot of the reason for this is scientists aim for very high impact journals, and get bounced, and then progressively move down through lower impact journals until one accepts it. I've been there: I've had a paper go through
three fucking years of rejections, revisions and delays before it finally got published. And indeed, as the article states: "Four of the top science journals in the world turned it down". Well, maybe it wasn't good enough for them and the authors had a vastly inflated sense of their work's importance and quality.
Thus the whole article is written to turn a massive nothingburger into a story with a load of conjecture, hearsay, and unsafe claims, right down to the supporting comments from a load of nobodies. It's exactly the sort of article designed to sucker the gullible and con the ignorant.
I put in parenthesis for a reason, it wasn't that big of a point obviously. There shouldn't be any fight for people to be able to discuss whatever the fuck the want to talk about, that's the point. Several researchers/scientists said they couldn't discuss it, I provided 2 articles saying as such.
Except they "proved" nothing at all, as per above. It's rumourmongering presented as fact.
She said that she feared "IMPENDING DOOM" from covid, how the fuck am I taking it out of context?
The context is that she was warning if the USA too quickly ended taking infection control measures and before vaccination was at a high level, it could pay a substantial cost in lives. A lot of the reason it may not have done is precisely that people continued to maintain common sense measures (e.g. mask wearing) and social distancing, even irrespective of government relaxations. And besides, you guys are back at nearly 100,000 new infections a day. How's that for your claims of herd immunity by April? Three months on, and you still don't have it.
If American health wasn't severely impeded last fall/winter by that wave, a new wave isn't going to severely impede the health system when so many are either vaccinated or naturally immune.
But all those people who might sicken and die unnecessarily: fuck them, right?
No fucking shit. Do I care that Billy Bob at the bar thinks tap water is poisoned or some shit?
Probably not, because you pretty much are Billy Bob here.
Funnily enough, the US government possibly did partly suppress the lab leak, but not for the reasons you think. It's been claimed US government officials were warned not to pursue it by other elements of the US government involved with national security. This because it would bring a lot of attention to gain of function research: where do you think a lot of the funding for it comes from? It actually comes from the Defence and Security arms of the government. They didn't want their research scrutinised or interfered with, nor fires lit under the seats of security and defence officials who approved it. At bare minimum, they wanted time to work out what their exposure might be and plan a defence.
The public, as you amply demonstrate for us on a weekly basis, have no clue what science says. Facebook has no clue what the science says. Large chunks of government have no clue what the science says. They all have their own concerns and agendas: science just isn't that powerful. If it were, the climate change debate would have been over 20 years ago and the terrain would be covered in wind turbines and solar panels rather than oil wells.
