RT @Bryce_Nickels: I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and car…
RT @Bryce_Nickels: I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and car…
RT @HansMahncke: I would encourage anyone who reads the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper to pay particular attention to footnote 20, which…
RT @HansMahncke: I would encourage anyone who reads the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper to pay particular attention to footnote 20, which…
RT @HansMahncke: I would encourage anyone who reads the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper to pay particular attention to footnote 20, which…
RT @HansMahncke: I would encourage anyone who reads the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper to pay particular attention to footnote 20, which…
RT @Bryce_Nickels: I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and car…
RT @HansMahncke: I would encourage anyone who reads the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper to pay particular attention to footnote 20, which…
RT @HansMahncke: I would encourage anyone who reads the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper to pay particular attention to footnote 20, which…
RT @HansMahncke: I would encourage anyone who reads the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper to pay particular attention to footnote 20, which…
RT @HansMahncke: I would encourage anyone who reads the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper to pay particular attention to footnote 20, which…
I would encourage anyone who reads the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper to pay particular attention to footnote 20, which cites a list of lab virus backbones from 2014 to "irrefutably" show that the 2019 Covid virus was not based on any lab virus backbones
RT @Bryce_Nickels: I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and car…
RT @Bryce_Nickels: I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and car…
RT @Bryce_Nickels: I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and car…
RT @Bryce_Nickels: I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and car…
RT @Bryce_Nickels: I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and car…
RT @Bryce_Nickels: I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and car…
I encourage academic scientists to read (or reread) "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (aka "Proximal Origins") and carefully consider the evidence used to support the claims made by the 5 authors. Links: Nat Med https://t.co/Ly5MUbBhgH PMC (no paywall) h
@NobodyHadToDie @real_seeking @IraIrleague @IanCopeland5 So why are all cause mortality rates higher in the unvaccinated? https://t.co/W2ioapeGfm
RT @jason_willz1: @1stacyphillips -Unvaccinated are dying at higher rates with higher all cause mortality in every country on earth -all ep…
RT @jason_willz1: @1stacyphillips -Unvaccinated are dying at higher rates with higher all cause mortality in every country on earth -all ep…
@KathyLb82 Read this and tell me what it means. https://t.co/7J8RmG78U6
Nature-medicineへの公開書簡 https://t.co/eNoUzKNyxJ ・SARS-CoV-2のゲノム配列を評価、「自然発生である」とした(https://t.co/2VIlctAsjE) ・論文の著者間の公開されたEメール及びSlackメッセージ は、著者らが論文を信じていなかったことを示している。 ・世界の研究者が論文の撤回を求めている
@VeritasVincit5 @AndyMLinn @past_is_future Your evidence-free claim is noted + rejected. https://t.co/Y2PhtD5f60 https://t.co/e8iO9xEgtA https://t.co/eSeCO6lhjY
@AndyMLinn 🥱 5 out of 9 USA intelligence community entities say natural zoonosis is more likely, 2 say lab leak is more likely, and 2 are non-committal. https://t.co/BPOz7iItsp [https://t.co/G1ffPMpby0] https://t.co/Y2PhtD5f60 https://t.co/e8iO9xEgtA ht
@coronafornia @abwil2 @organicdot @DollyMunoz19 @JimLong36610263 @DarlaShine Scientists largely discredited the "bio-engineered" conspiracy theory early in the pandemic. It's basically a myth. Even if the myth were true, it's no excuse for ignoring public
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @TylerAStepke @ggronvall @KatherineEban @VanityFair @ENERGY @NIH Stop trolling. 5 out of 9 USA intelligence community…
@quisp1965 @JamieOber8590 @ggronvall @KatherineEban @VanityFair @ENERGY @NIH Paranoia about supposed 'coincidences' is the realm of folks like Sandy Hook truthers. I'm interested in evidence. Not baseless paranoia. https://t.co/Y2PhtD5f60 https://t.co/e
@TylerAStepke @ggronvall @KatherineEban @VanityFair @ENERGY @NIH Stop trolling. 5 out of 9 USA intelligence community entities say natural zoonosis is more likely, 2 say lab leak is more likely, and 2 are non-committal. https://t.co/BPOz7iItsp [https://t.
@PavlosPavlova @quay_dr @R_H_Ebright "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." https://t.co/hPD72Lz3qU
@acesoth @zaqrider @justinbaragona @mehdirhasan This is what scientific evidence actually looks like. Not some YouTube video titled TRUTH BOMB. Keep in mind this is a topic you volunteered to debate, answers to simple questions shouldn't be this hard. http
@michaelzlin You just described the proximal origins paper without knowing it https://t.co/aLVT38UDv5
@Nature @RetractionWatch This paper is a lie. Do your job and retract this🚮🚮🚮🚮
The hoax of the century
@Sijwill @Chris__Sage @R_H_Ebright I'm on subject: You're using the same daft + deceptive reasoning on pandemic/origins as used by conspiracists on ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vaccines, etc. You just don't like that deception of your's being pointed
@Sijwill @Chris__Sage @R_H_Ebright Still no published evidence from you, just as on ivermectin. 5 out of 9 USA intelligence community entities say natural zoonosis is more likely, 2 say lab leak is more likely, and 2 are non-committal. https://t.co/BPOz7i
@Sijwill @Chris__Sage @R_H_Ebright Re: "Currently LL hypothesis has way more evidence than zoonosis." As vacuous as saying there way way more evidence that ivermectin worked for SARS-CoV-2. You don't cite published on this, anymore than you did on iverme
@Sijwill @Chris__Sage @R_H_Ebright Re: "You clearly have no argument whatsoever to debate LL." 🥱 5 out of 9 USA intelligence community entities say natural zoonosis is more likely, 2 say lab leak is more likely, and 2 are non-committal. https://t.co/BPOz
@Mydit2222 @MagaisLife @EdKrassen Indeed.
"not only do we know there were WIV scientists who had developed COVID-19-like illnesses in November 2019, but also that they were working with the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2, and inserting gain-of-function features unique to it" https://t.co/jgPaIGfu
@user19211934330 J'attends de voir ses études. En attendant, on a des études phylogénétique des Divers souches du SRAS-CoV-2 qui montre que c'est une zoonoses de chauve-souris. https://t.co/EFIUB3b5xL https://t.co/Dms2fnxnIP https://t.co/6OaXFNgFru
@corona_realism Da liegen doch ca. 3 Wo zwischen Mail und Versicherung an Eides statt, oder? Versteh ich das falsch? Trotzdem nat. maximal unglaubwürdig - ist erkennb., wann die proximal origins correspondence tatsächlich eingereicht wurde? Hab kein “subm
@The_Trump_Train Moron still listening to the QAnon whackos. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 i.. two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer;
@CaulfieldTim @RyanMarino @jonathanstea @DocMCohen @AntibioticDoc @DrShazmaMithani @StanKutcher @doritmi @DrKatEpi @GidMK Still waiting for that extremely flawed and criminally intentional deceptive paper known as "The Proximal Origins of SARS-COV-2" to be
@tb_nature @eneldiluvio @jsm2334 @RogerSeheult A letter to the editor… hmmm…. Sounds like another paper I read recently… https://t.co/aAe22Jvoir
@dennis_crork @RobinBroadway4 a.) No evidence that it's a bioweapon. b.) The genome line you've been fed is false. MANY papers and articles are available to you that explain in detail why this is so. This is the widely held viewpoint by most experts. htt
@MagaisLife @EdKrassen Read the actual papers, not the misinformation written about them. https://t.co/yjiZUOBrnW
@BreezerGalway @SirMasksALot @basil_ireton Can't believe that they didn't retract this shit piece too. Don't worry already been through that with Andersen and how he lied to the whole world. https://t.co/BgQqXmuHXi
RT @Purinnsesumimi: 科学雑誌Natureに掲載されたこの研究では、その著者は新しいコロナウイルスの起源に言及しています。 ⬇ https://t.co/1nCNQHc1PA
RT @hkakeya: もちろん不正があった論文自体は全否定されるべき。その意味で、以下のNature Medicineの論文は、NIH上層部との間で口裏合わせがあったことが情報公開で判明した以上、信頼性を失っている。だが、この論文を根拠に新型コロナ研究所起源を否定した人たち…
scientific process involve excluding highly probable possibilites without research or investigation, an approach befitting an unscientific, dogmatic and biased mind? I think not! Here is Andersen's original paper: https://t.co/Mrc3uhhVz8
RT @Williamrt: 9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific…
RT @Williamrt: 9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific…
RT @Williamrt: 9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific…
RT @Williamrt: 9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific…
RT @Williamrt: 9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific…
RT @Williamrt: 9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific…
RT @Williamrt: 9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific…
RT @Williamrt: 9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific…
RT @Williamrt: 9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific…
RT @LeRaptorWild: @Antoine32326 @TheReturnOfMako @PetiteM_ L'origine naturelle et son lien avec les virus zoonotique beta-coronavirus de la…
9/ The group was confounded when Nature Medicine, the peer-reviewed monthly clinical medical journal, published a scientific report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, showing that it was “not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”. https://
@Antoine32326 @TheReturnOfMako @PetiteM_ L'origine naturelle et son lien avec les virus zoonotique beta-coronavirus de la chauve souris du SRAS-CoV-2 est prouvé via divers études génomique. -https://t.co/Dms2fnxnIP -https://t.co/EFIUB3b5xL -https://t.co/6O
RT @hkakeya: もちろん不正があった論文自体は全否定されるべき。その意味で、以下のNature Medicineの論文は、NIH上層部との間で口裏合わせがあったことが情報公開で判明した以上、信頼性を失っている。だが、この論文を根拠に新型コロナ研究所起源を否定した人たち…
RT @hkakeya: 福家先生は新型コロナ天然起源説をデマと断じられ、研究所起源が有力になった今も撤回されていません。よく調べず論文を鵜呑みにされただけなら、良識のある人はそれを認めて撤回します。撤回しない以上、学術的に強固な見解をお持ちなはずです。是非それをご披露下さい。…
@jvgraz Yeah I had a feeling it would be something stupid like that. Like I said, you are told by others what to think because you are unable to think for yourself. There is a lack of evidence of anything Kanekoa says. Here is the paper he was referring to
RT @DarwinEmmiYedek: Bu yanlış. SARS-CoV-2'nin olası bir laboratuvar kaynağı yazarların daha önceki yayınlarında tartışılmıştı. https://t.…
RT @DarwinEmmiYedek: @hygeia_k Bak habire sallıyorsun.! Yapay virüs olduğuna dair hiç bir kanıtın yok ama benim doğal olduğuna dair kanıtl…
@nowpoints @SocialistHB Proximal origins https://t.co/81jbVGMFoQ
RT @JamieMetzl: This language from the March 2020 Proximal Origin paper is 100% indefensible — per any credible evaluation: “We do not bel…
@JimBowersclimb @ScottAdamsSays @sooieeehog Of course. The sort of mind that believes the Climate Change narrative because authority commands them to will point to a Nature article and believe it is Reality. If that convinces you here's Fauci's Proximal O
When top scientific journals attempted the biggest cover up in modern times, it is clear that many high profile people were involved in #COVID lab origin.
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 福家先生は新型コロナ天然起源説をデマと断じられ、研究所起源が有力になった今も撤回されていません。よく調べず論文を鵜呑みにされただけなら、良識のある人はそれを認めて撤回します。撤回しない以上、学術的に強固な見解をお持ちなはずです。是非それをご披露下さい。…
RT @EARL_med_tw: 新型コロナウイルスは,研究室で人工的に作られた,あるいは意図的に操作されたものではない.ゲノム解析結果(Nat Med 2020, Mar17) https://t.co/GLEyif8nPq いまだに人工ウイルスだの生物兵器だのデマ流してる…
RT @EARL_med_tw: 新型コロナウイルスは,研究室で人工的に作られた,あるいは意図的に操作されたものではない.ゲノム解析結果(Nat Med 2020, Mar17) https://t.co/GLEyif8nPq いまだに人工ウイルスだの生物兵器だのデマ流してる…
RT @EARL_med_tw: 新型コロナウイルスは,研究室で人工的に作られた,あるいは意図的に操作されたものではない.ゲノム解析結果(Nat Med 2020, Mar17) https://t.co/GLEyif8nPq いまだに人工ウイルスだの生物兵器だのデマ流してる…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 福家先生は新型コロナ天然起源説をデマと断じられ、研究所起源が有力になった今も撤回されていません。よく調べず論文を鵜呑みにされただけなら、良識のある人はそれを認めて撤回します。撤回しない以上、学術的に強固な見解をお持ちなはずです。是非それをご披露下さい。…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 福家先生は新型コロナ天然起源説をデマと断じられ、研究所起源が有力になった今も撤回されていません。よく調べず論文を鵜呑みにされただけなら、良識のある人はそれを認めて撤回します。撤回しない以上、学術的に強固な見解をお持ちなはずです。是非それをご披露下さい。…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
3年半前。
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…
RT @hkakeya: 情報公開や議会の調査で、この論文の著者たちがE-mailやSlackでは研究所起源だろうと書いていたことが明るみになったことを福家先生はご存じなのだろうか。世界の約60人の研究者がNature Medicineに論文撤回要求もしています。 https:…