On 04/01/2022 17:32, Java Jive wrote:

<abuse snipped>

The fundamental problem that you have is that you have based your
entrenched position regarding the source of the Wuhan virus on second-,
third-, or fourth-hand information based on scientific papers, and given
that the same weight as the papers themselves. This assumes that this
sort of reporting reflects accurately and completely the original paper.
The question you have to address is whether, in each of the cases you
have cited, your approach is justified.

Even an author of such a paper may change the tone or thrust of his
original paper when interviewed about it, even if it is only to
accommodate, consciously or otherwise, the audience for his message or
the interviewing journalist. In the latter case, an article will be
produced that will necessarily be filtered by the journalists' own
experiences and knowledge, and the requirements and policies of the
organisation that he is writing for. For such subject areas of virology
and microbiology, presenting these difficult topics to a lay audience in
a manner that encompasses the gravity of the original paper, may be
difficult. Things may be lost in the translation. If you yourself have
ever been involved in a deeply-scientific area, and later seen how this
was treated in the mass media, you will recognise the pitfalls inherent
in taking that latter as an authoritative source.

These are the reasons why I have encouraged you on many occasions to go
the the peer-reviewed papers themselves rather than the mass-media
reports you proffer links to, for you to read and understand them, and
grasp the issues involved, such as why such authors from such a research
institute have undertaken such research and published the information
they did in the manner in which they did it. This is not a simple task.

Although you eschew the lessons of history, an appropriate one for you
is the work done by Soviet scientists in the field of nuclear weapons
development. They were proud of the difficult work they had done, just
like their Western counterparts. But they were under very tight control,
and could not publish their work openly. Their solution was to have
their work published in e.g. Astrophysics journals, as if it pertained
to the inner processes of bodies such as neutron stars, and by this
means avoid the onerous external censorship. It meant that such papers
had to be read but not taken at face value, rather examined in width and
depth. This is something I commend to you as a modus for your research
of scientific publications, rather than relying on media reports as an
accurate reflection of the science of the topic of interest, and a basis
on which to found an entrenched position.

--
Spike

On 17:32 4 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> On 04/01/2022 17:04, Spike wrote:
>> On 03/01/2022 11:26, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> When the score is 1-21 against you, you've lost. When you're in a
>>> hole, stop digging.
>>
>> When it finally dawns on you that you've scuppered your own case,
>> give up.
>
> 'Denialism by Dance' doesn't seem to be making much progress. When
> the score is 1-21 against you, you've lost.
>
> Troll plonked.

About time. :)