“You are trying to distract from the content of this
thread.”
Au contraire. I am jumping into the very heart of the thread: The self-serving claim in some Russian vanity blog that the US is operating a biological weapons program in Ukraine. And, what’s more, that the US has injected Ukrainian troops with “...psychotropic drugs, which are aimed at increasing both their aggressiveness and inhuman cruelty...which is directed against...women, children and prisoners of war.” She goes on to say that the US is injecting these troops in order to create unhuman “monsters.”
She goes from claiming the US is operating bio-weapons labs in Ukraine to claiming the US is intentionally injecting Ukrainian troops with drugs that will make them rape and torture and kill women, children, and POWs! What; did she forget the slander of the US ordering the bayonetting of little babies? Of putting newborns in ovens?
Her screed is typical of Russian propaganda. And you seem to lend it credence.
“’Peer reviewed’ when the UN won’t even investigate?”
So, are you saying that there cannot be any peer reviews if the UN is not investigating? Because that is what your statement is implying.
“The TWitter source has successfully pointed to these labs...”
No, she has not; she has just made a claim, and one that she has not substantiated with any credible evidence (and her hyperbole about manmade monsters ruining the virtues of unidentified women, and abusing children, and torturing and killing not only the lot of them, but POWS, as well.
“...and I am investigating to see what else there is about them.”
Good; you do that. Let us know what actual evidence you come up with. You may even get a Pulitzer.
“’Peer reviewed’ when the UN won’t even investigate?”
So, are you saying that there cannot be any peer reviews if the UN is not investigating? Because that is what your statement is implying.
“Who would gain access to get the documentation and who peer reviews requests to the UN?”
Well, Russia is making the claim, so it should be up to Russia to get the documentation to support its claim. And I don’t think you quite understand what a peer review is:
It is a review of an expert’s work or scholarship by his or her peers (i.e., other experts in the same field or discipline).
“You’re just making it up as you go along...”
No, I’m pushing back on wild claims and hysterical hyperbole.
“...and wasting our time.”
Which means you can’t support your position, and are taking to the hills. That is not surprising, given that your argument all along has been somewhat shy of coherent.
I just identified the source of the petition to the UN as Russian, since the petition is not available anywhere else. I’ve read the UN content on and off over the years and have never seen a ‘peer review’ and in this case, one is impossible because only content supporting NATO/US claims will be considered and the rest subverted in a media blackout.
I also posted as ‘ASSERTION’ some Twitter content and for this I’m supposed to spend all day dealing with your waste-of-time ‘input’ like ‘Twitter?’ This you describe as ‘hysterical screed’.
It looks like you’re saying if I find your content and self-serving distortions is a waste of my time, I’m still expected to spend my time repeatedly refuting you until you get tired? If I don’t wait until you get tired and instead choose to do something of value instead, after I already achieved my objective by posting content for FReepers to consider, then you say it means I’m ‘taking to the hills’? I just don’t ‘babysit’ your kind, okay? I welcome all readers of the thread to spend as much or as little time on it as they wish.