On 19/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:

>> That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.

> And what are your qualifications exactly? Amongst many other things, my
> degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* for your
> claims, put up or shut up.

Just because *YOU* jumped in unbidden with *BOASTS* about your
qualifications, such as they are, doesn't mean that others have to come
down to your level.

--
Spike

On 19/11/2021 14:59, Indy Jess John wrote:

> I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
> realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.

That's where I came in to the thread, but Java Jive seemed to be very
sensitive about alternatives to the wet-market issue, and for reasons
best known to himself keeps asking others to provide 'evidence';
although something must have turned up, since he's watered down his
original claims.

--
Spike

xposting trimmed

In article <ivpn3dFiakjU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 10:58, Pamela wrote:
> > On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> >> On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
> >>> On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:

> >>>> Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
> >>>> sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.

> >>> Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
> >>> abusing the winner.

> >> It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.

> >> The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL

> >>> Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.

> >> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

> > I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but I
> > thought you claimed there was a lab leak.

> > Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?

> You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed himself
> to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following
> extensive interchanges with several contributors, he shifted his ground,
> he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse,
> fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of
> false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case for him.
> That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.

Erm, Someone who'd taken and understood "Science 101" would spot that the
above is evidence-free wrt the assertion about a lab-leak as source and
didn't answer Pamela's question. Instead it is just an attack which is
perhaps more typical of a 4th-form debating society's playbook.

I think it likely that trying to get any sense from 'Spike' is a waste of
time.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 14:05 19 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
> On 19/11/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
>>
>>
>> he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse,
>> fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding
>> of false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case
>> for him.
>
> Hyposhite! Stop trying to lie yourself out of losing an argument.
> To summarise in one sentence, all along you have claimed a lab-leak,
> but have never been able to produce convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up
> this claim; let's see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

Just be glad Spike's stopped posting in Latin. Maybe he's a law
student.

"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
> On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>
>>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal
>>> experiences. That is real factual information.
>>
>> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.
>
> You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
> circumstances at the time.

I know that

> I have snipped the non-sequitur bollocks you spouted below.
>>
> Jim

"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
> On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>
>>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal
>>> experiences. That is real factual information.
>>
>> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.
>
> You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
> circumstances at the time.

I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.

This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have spoken
with - are either lying or have been mislead.

On 19:20 19 Nov 2021, Alexander said:
>
> "Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
> message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
>
>> On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few
>>>> personal experiences. That is real factual information.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual
>>> information.
>>
>> You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
>> circumstances at the time.
>
> I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
> narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
>
> This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have
> spoken with - are either lying or have been mislead.

Your assertions about Covid have been largely anecdotal.

You mentioned gagging orders placed on medical staff but provided no
proof when I asked. You also claim many medical staff say there was no
first wave, again with no evidence of what they say.

Your notions are so preposterous and so lacking in proof that they
can't be distinguished from the ideas of a conspiracy theorist adrift
from reality.

MID: <XnsADE6D094D2B6E37B93@144.76.35.252>

On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
>
> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal
>>>> experiences. That is real factual information.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.
>>
>> You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
>> circumstances at the time.
>
> I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
> narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
>
> This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have spoken
> with - are either lying or have been mislead.
>
>
Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!

"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn8vdm$br1$1@dont-email.me...
> On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
>>> On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal
>>>>> experiences. That is real factual information.
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.
>>>
>>> You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
>>> circumstances at the time.
>>
>> I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
>> narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
>>
>> This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have spoken
>> with - are either lying or have been mislead.
>>
>>
> Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!

All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the flu
and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.

On 19/11/2021 15:33, Spike wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 19/11/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
>>
>> And what are your qualifications exactly? Amongst many other things, my
>> degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* for your
>> claims, put up or shut up.
>
> Just because *YOU* jumped in unbidden with *BOASTS* about your
> qualifications, such as they are, doesn't mean that others have to come
> down to your level.

You were already way below my level, doubting my ability because you
couldn't find a rational argument against what I was posting; so, seeing
as you started this stupidity, what are your qualifications exactly?
Amongst many other things, my degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*;
let's see *EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/11/2021 15:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> xposting trimmed
>
> In article <ivpn3dFiakjU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 19/11/2021 10:58, Pamela wrote:
>>> On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>>>> On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
>
>>>>>> Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
>>>>>> sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
>
>>>>> Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
>>>>> abusing the winner.
>
>>>> It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
>
>>>> The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
>
>>>>> Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
>
>>>> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
>
>>> I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but I
>>> thought you claimed there was a lab leak.
>
>>> Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?
>
>> You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed himself
>> to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following
>> extensive interchanges with several contributors, he shifted his ground,
>> he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse,
>> fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of
>> false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case for him.
>> That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.
>
> Erm, Someone who'd taken and understood "Science 101" would spot that the
> above is evidence-free wrt the assertion about a lab-leak as source and
> didn't answer Pamela's question. Instead it is just an attack which is
> perhaps more typical of a 4th-form debating society's playbook.

No, can't agree with that, I've seen 14 year olds debate much more
rationally than 'Spike'!

> I think it likely that trying to get any sense from 'Spike' is a waste of
> time.

Oh sure, he's just a dishonest time-wasting troll, but as long as he
keeps lying, I'll keep asking for evidence to support his lies.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/11/2021 14:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 18/11/2021 22:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/11/2021 20:45, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that
>>>>> don't
>>>>> align with yours, hence the comment above.
>>>>
>>>> Then why the resorting to abuse?
>>>
>>> It is not abuse, it is my opinion, based on the way you responded to me.
>>
>> It's an abusive opinion = abuse.
>
> It isn't.  But your view that it is suggests that there is at least an
> element of truth in my opinion. The following is an excessive argument
> too, so perhaps I have touched a raw nerve?

No, you're just continuing the abuse, while trying to claim that you aren't.

>> Perhaps the way I respond to you has
>> something to do with the way you persist in believing in some absurd and
>> laughably improbable conspiracy theories against all rational evidence
>> to the contrary?
>
> I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
> realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.

So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 20:28 19 Nov 2021, Alexander said:
>
> "Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
> message news:sn8vdm$br1$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
> message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
> message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few
>>>>>> personal experiences. That is real factual information.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual
>>>>> information.
>>>>
>>>> You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
>>>> circumstances at the time.
>>>
>>> I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
>>> narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
>>>
>>> This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have
>>> spoken with - are either lying or have been mislead.
>>>
>> Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!
>
> All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the
> flu and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.

What do we do about Bill Gates' microchips that came in the vaccine?

Is it true they communicate with Windows 10? Should I wrap myself in
foil when I use the computer?

On 19/11/2021 15:35, Spike wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 14:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>> I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
>> realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
>> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
>
> That's where I came in to the thread, but Java Jive seemed to be very
> sensitive about alternatives to the wet-market issue, and for reasons
> best known to himself keeps asking others to provide 'evidence';
> although something must have turned up, since he's watered down his
> original claims.

That is a lie - you tried to claim that there was evidence that it was
a lab-leak, and further by posting links to cold-war Russian bio-weapons
research tried to imply that it was a lab-leak from similar research in
China. As I've explained now many times, even just a careless lab-leak
from a benign institution is the least likely amongst the possible
explanations, while the bio-weapons idea is so unlikely that it's simply
typically absurd conspiracy theory nonsense.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
>
> I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
> narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
>
> This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have spoken
> with - are either lying or have been mislead.

You *KNOW*, as in *CAN PROVE*, nothing of the sort! You're just a
conspiracy theory nutter who flatters himself into thinking he's special
by being so darned cleverer than anyone else that he can 'see' what
others can't, but every one else can actually see that you're just a
hopelessly blind, misguided, and arrogant conspiracy theory nutter.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/11/2021 20:28, Alexander wrote:
>
> "Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn8vdm$br1$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!
>
> All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the flu
> and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.

All conspiracy theorists had to do was tell you a load of dangerously
stupid lies and you believed them.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 14:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 19/11/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/11/2021 22:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18/11/2021 20:45, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> align with yours, hence the comment above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why the resorting to abuse?
>>>>
>>>> It is not abuse, it is my opinion, based on the way you responded to me.
>>>
>>> It's an abusive opinion = abuse.
>>
>> It isn't. But your view that it is suggests that there is at least an
>> element of truth in my opinion. The following is an excessive argument
>> too, so perhaps I have touched a raw nerve?
>
> No, you're just continuing the abuse, while trying to claim that you aren't.
>
>>> Perhaps the way I respond to you has
>>> something to do with the way you persist in believing in some absurd and
>>> laughably improbable conspiracy theories against all rational evidence
>>> to the contrary?
>>
>> I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
>> realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
>> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
>
> So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
>
"against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what
"balance of probability" can justify.

QED

Jim

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 13:28:14 +0000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
wrote:

>On 19/11/2021 10:58, Pamela wrote:
>> On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>>> On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
>>>>> sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
>
>>>> Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
>>>> abusing the winner.
>
>>> It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
>
>>> The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
>
>>>> Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
>
>>> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
>
>> I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but I
>> thought you claimed there was a lab leak.
>
>> Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?
>
>You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed himself
>to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following
>extensive interchanges with several contributors, he shifted his ground,
>he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse,
>fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of
>false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case for him.
>That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.

JJ maybe correct. A report published in Science and*referred* to in
the Gruniad
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/first-covid-patient-in-wuhan-was-at-animal-market-study-finds
supports his postulate.

--
brightside S9

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 21:40:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 20:28 19 Nov 2021, Alexander said:
>>
>> "Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
>> message news:sn8vdm$br1$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
>> message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
>> message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few
>>>>>>> personal experiences. That is real factual information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual
>>>>>> information.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
>>>>> circumstances at the time.
>>>>
>>>> I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
>>>> narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
>>>>
>>>> This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have
>>>> spoken with - are either lying or have been mislead.
>>>>
>>> Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!
>>
>> All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the
>> flu and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.
>
>What do we do about Bill Gates' microchips that came in the vaccine?
>

Ah Ha, that's where the chips have gone that new cars need. Shrewd
operator is Bill Gates, less cars, less global warming, more goody
points he gets.

>Is it true they communicate with Windows 10? Should I wrap myself in
>foil when I use the computer?

--
brightside S9

On 19/11/2021 21:31, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 15:33, Spike wrote:
>> On 19/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 19/11/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:

>>> And what are your qualifications exactly? Amongst many other things, my
>>> degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* for your
>>> claims, put up or shut up.

>> Just because *YOU* jumped in unbidden with *BOASTS* about your
>> qualifications, such as they are, doesn't mean that others have to come
>> down to your level.

> You were already way below my level, doubting my ability because you
> couldn't find a rational argument against what I was posting; so, seeing
> as you started this stupidity, what are your qualifications exactly?

Actually it was *YOU* that brought up the red herring of qualifications,
as a way of shoring up your *lost* *argument*, but you really ought to
have had something *better* *than* *S101* to back you up.

> Amongst many other things, my degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*;
> let's see *EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up or shut up.

*YOU* made the case. *YOU* provide the evidence.

--
Spike

On 19/11/2021 21:41, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 15:35, Spike wrote:
>> On 19/11/2021 14:59, Indy Jess John wrote:

>>> I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
>>> realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
>>> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.

>> That's where I came in to the thread, but Java Jive seemed to be very
>> sensitive about alternatives to the wet-market issue, and for reasons
>> best known to himself keeps asking others to provide 'evidence';
>> although something must have turned up, since he's watered down his
>> original claims.

> That is a lie - you tried to claim that there was evidence that it was
> a lab-leak, and further by posting links to cold-war Russian bio-weapons
> research tried to imply that it was a lab-leak from similar research in
> China. As I've explained now many times, even just a careless lab-leak
> from a benign institution is the least likely amongst the possible
> explanations, while the bio-weapons idea is so unlikely that it's simply
> typically absurd conspiracy theory nonsense.

*COBBLERS*

--
Spike

On 20/11/2021 09:17, Spike wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2021 21:31, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Amongst many other things, my degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*;
>> let's see *EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up or shut up.
>
> *YOU* made the case. *YOU* provide the evidence.

*YOU* made the claims that the pandemic was caused by a lab-leak. *YOU*
provide the evidence for that claim.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/11/2021 22:55, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>
> JJ maybe correct. A report published in Science and*referred* to in
> the Gruniad
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/first-covid-patient-in-wuhan-was-at-animal-market-study-finds
> supports his postulate.

Yup. The actual report contains a map of the earliest cases, and they
are clearly centred around the market, not the lab:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454

Tx for the Guardian link to this.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 20/11/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2021 21:41, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> That is a lie - you tried to claim that there was evidence that it was
>> a lab-leak, and further by posting links to cold-war Russian bio-weapons
>> research tried to imply that it was a lab-leak from similar research in
>> China. As I've explained now many times, even just a careless lab-leak
>> from a benign institution is the least likely amongst the possible
>> explanations, while the bio-weapons idea is so unlikely that it's simply
>> typically absurd conspiracy theory nonsense.
>
> *COBBLERS*

Your posting record above says otherwise, and still no *EVIDENCE* for a
lab-leak, where is your *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> So what's new?  I've never claimed otherwise!
>>
> "against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what
> "balance of probability" can justify.

That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against all
rational evidence to the contrary".

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk