Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Viral origins, the stitchup" video.

  1. Of all the things I love about Dr. Campbell, right at the top of the list is his meticulous documentation, and the fact that he always provides links to the original papers, and encourages reading. No one else is as good.
    385
  2. @@TOM-TOM-TOM I always do.
    6
  3. @@TOM-TOM-TOM I know how to do research and read the studies. I used to work with the Daubert standard for expert witness testimony, so I know what advocacy looks like, and how it differs from unbiased presentation on the one hand, and misrepresentation on the other. It is certainly not the latter, and usually not the former, either. What I'm having trouble with is why you imagine everyone here is too stupid to understand what you, in your serene wisdom, would know in your sleep. Why would that be? Inexperience on your part? Too many teachers who graded you too easily?
    2
  4. @@TOM-TOM-TOM This video is about the suspension of inquiry into the origins of the virus that caused this pandemic. What did you find false or misleading in this video, relative to the documentation? Origins, may I remind you, are a separate question from any other. If indeed there was any form of "engineering" applied to this virus, the truth of the matter is, we may have to make peace with flawed vaccines to stop it. That's just a (sad) fact. So far, though, that does not seem to be possible -- stopping it, I mean. Or accepting what we've been offered so far. Research the vaccines that have already been disfavored by countries with sound public health policies. I am being careful here to avoid sense or ship. So much for free inquiry.
    2
  5.  @martinlong8739  Wikipedia standing alone is not a reliable source unless you yourself hunt down all of the footnotes and verify them. I have not, so I am not taking issue with the substance of your comment -- IF you did do the legwork. If you didn't, then do. Get back to us.
    1
  6. @@TOM-TOM-TOM " If you disagree with the study author's conclusions, you can't really use the info from the study, if their conclusion is wrong, then everything about their study is most likely to be wrong." This is not the case at all. This is the very reason for peer review, and generally represents the scope of peer review. Barring evidence to the contrary, reviewers will generally assume the integrity of the data presented, and then see whether the conclusions follow rigorously from that data. That's all that peer review generally is. If someone presents the study data without stating that its conclusion differs from their own and why, that may be misleading. Or it may be advocacy. If they elect to present the study, what matters is to be meticulous about reviewing the data and taking care to draw sound conclusions from it. I just saw a study the other day concerning magnesium that looked to me to be too sanguine about the risks of having too much magnesium in the bloodstream, and advocating too strongly for increasing magnesium intake, especially among those who are suffering from COVID. True, the data indicated that low levels of magnesium were a much more common problem -- widespread, in fact -- and that having too much magnesium is really unusual. Still, I didn't think the conclusions were solid. I believed the data -- I had to, to come to this view. You do see that, right?
    1
  7.  @_5_675  Not only that, but pronouns. /s
    1