Nice cover.
But most people when they ask for why something is believeable, and are told that two Nobel prize winners in their fields endorse the idea, don't go on and pretend to have not heard, and repeat the same "fake-wide-eyed innocent" questioner persona on another thread.
They respond like "Gee, Two Nobel Prize winners? Got a link?" or at least make a courtesy reference the next time they're in a thread on the topic.
But TROLLS just repeat their original "oh I'm so new at these, I just have a *couple* of simple questions" (which reinforce the preferred narrative).
One of a number of techniques the BigPharma/DeepState pro-jab infiltrators have adopted.
I know I said I would ignore you, but it's a slow day.
Look, I am aware of the material that you reference, and have actually met David Baltimore a few times. He's a very smart guy, and his opinion is certainly worth adding to the pile of evidence.
But you simply have not made the case that you are advancing. And oddly, the opinion that I offered does not contradict your case in the least. So the energy you're putting in to this little flame war seems strange. And, at your request, as previously noted, I looked at your posting history. You are on a hair trigger to launch invective at long-time FReepers with long rambling rants that just never seem to get to the point.
And by the way, I didn't ask you for a link or any outside resources, and I don't have a preferred narrative. Never advanced one.
What I was trying to ask was how the opinion I posted, that this is a CCP bioweapon, in any way contradicts your opinion that it is a bioengineered bioweapon. The first statement can be validated simply by looking at the behavior of the CCP from November of 2019 on. The second is a valid line of inquiry that is not yet proved.
Why are you hyperventilating when there appears to be no actual point of disagreement?