The Fauci Emails

[gwb-trading]

From the article idiot.

You can't be this stupid.

“With an ultimate goal of better understanding disease pathways, gain-of-function studies aim to increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.”

______________________________________________

Apparently, you have a problem with reading comprehension.

I will post it again.


Paul asked, "You take an animal virus and you increase it's transmissibility to humans, you're saying that's not gain of function?"

Facui replied, "That's correct..."

Maybe you need to provide a link to the "article" and quote the ENTIRE paragraph to get proper context.

 

[WeToddDid2]

So what do you exactly disagree with in the fact check? It basically defines the actual facts - none of it is disputable.

It is absolutely disputable. Why in the hell do you think none of it is disputable?

That is the biggest horeshit I have ever read in my life.

 

[gwb-trading]

It is absolutely disputable. Why in the hell do you think none of it is disputable?

That is the biggest horeshit I have ever read in my life.

Which exact sentence(s) in the fact check do you dispute?

 

[WeToddDid2]

none of it is disputable.

That defies the very definition of the scientific method.

You are clearly very happy being a sheeple.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Which exact sentence(s) in the fact check do you dispute?

Just put the word "fact" into a domain name and suddenly all authors that write are infallible, nonbiased, and perfect.

 

[gwb-trading]

Just put the word "fact" into a domain name and suddenly all authors that write are infallible, nonbiased, and perfect.

So you cannot find a single sentence in the fact check article to dispute. Got it.

 

[WeToddDid2]

So you cannot find a single sentence in the fact check article to dispute. Got it.

Total bullshit. STOP THE LIES!

There are tons of them.

I am going to get Fox News to register a new domain name, Fact Checks by Fox News. Every single statement and article on the new site can not be disputed because it has fact in the domain name, duh.

 

[WeToddDid2]

So you cannot find a single sentence in the fact check article to dispute. Got it.

Post a scientific document not a political propaganda piece and then we can talk.

 

[gwb-trading]

Post a scientific document not a political propaganda piece and then we can talk.

Taking refuge in calling facts propaganda when you cannot dispute a single fact in the article. Got it.

 

[longandshort]

Post a scientific document not a political propaganda piece and then we can talk.

Can you point out what you are finding to be false?