ADVERTISEMENT

This lady is about to catch the suicide.

I’m going to pass.
yan-1.jpg
 
Makes about as much sense as any other blow hard that doesn’t know what the eff they are taking about.
 

Always a "tell", when their citation for this article is another article they (NYPost) published 3 days ago..... :oops:

Almost like they didn't get enough press off the first run, so they ran it again.
And again
And again
 
Always a "tell", when their citation for this article is another article they (NYPost) published 3 days ago..... :oops:

Almost like they didn't get enough press off the first run, so they ran it again.
And again
And again
Actual citation used.



 
Actual citation used.




#NotARealJournal
 
You are moving the goalposts. NYPost even cites it as an "OpenAccess repository".

Nothing is peer reviewed. It's not science. It's not a journal.
Joe, you are the one that claimed the original NY post piece was what was being referenced, that was proven to be inaccurate when I put that actual piece being referenced. You then went with "that isnt a real journal" at which point I put the "moving the goal post meme". Keep up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_89hvcc2uyzmki
No; I stated THE FIRST LINK they posted was THEIR OWN ARTICLE, which was the SAME STORY from 3 days ago.

Keep up.
I am "they" and You are wrong. The OP is an article about what this virologist believes to be true. The article being refrenced is the one that was submitted to zenote. There may infact have been several articles about what this DR. Submitted to zenote but the article being "referenced" is to zenote. Its ok to be wrong every now and then, and you were this time.
 
No; I stated, outright, that the FIRST LINK in the NY Post article was TO THEIR OWN ARTICLE 3 DAYS AGO.

READ IT.
This is what you actually said:

Always a "tell", when their citation for this article is another article they (NYPost) published 3 days ago..... :oops:

Almost like they didn't get enough press off the first run, so they ran it again.
And again
And again


And this is the citation:



And you are a moran.
 
I think there is a definite possibility (like a ~20% chance) that this thing was genetically modified in a lab and accidentally released into the public. Hopefully science can definitely answer this question one way or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_89hvcc2uyzmki
I think there is a definite possibility (like a ~20% chance) that this thing was genetically modified in a lab and accidentally released into the public. Hopefully science can definitely answer this question one way or the other.

<0.001% chance.
Virus genome has been sequenced, and if it had been CRISPR'd, they'd have known about it in December.
 
<0.001% chance.
Virus genome has been sequenced, and if it had been CRISPR'd, they'd have known about it in December.

What do you do for a living, anyway? Are you a professional virologist or just an amateur one?
 
Joe, you are the one that claimed the original NY post piece was what was being referenced, that was proven to be inaccurate when I put that actual piece being referenced. You then went with "that isnt a real journal" at which point I put the "moving the goal post meme". Keep up.

Here's why you are wrong. The source they are using isn't a peer reviewed journal so therefore, this is not a sourced article. Joe's point still stands. Just naming some random site might work for an 8th grade research paper, but it doesn't work in the professional world.
 
Here's why you are wrong. The source they are using isn't a peer reviewed journal so therefore, this is not a sourced article. Joe's point still stands. Just naming some random site might work for an 8th grade research paper, but it doesn't work in the professional world.
They are not using the first article as a citation they are citing a non peer reviewed journal article for this claim. No one is disputing that it hasn't been peer reviewed dipshit, the source article being discussed is the journal article not the first Nypost article. Just because they provide a hyperlink to a previous NY post article where they originally brought up the topic doesnt meqn that is the source of information being discussed, the source is the next hyperlink if you actually read the article. Jfc.
 
They are not using the first article as a citation they are citing a non peer reviewed journal article for this claim. No one is disputing that it hasn't been peer reviewed dipshit, the source article being discussed is the journal article not the first Nypost article. Just because they provide a hyperlink to a previous NY post article where they originally brought up the topic doesnt meqn that is the source of information being discussed, the source is the next hyperlink if you actually read the article. Jfc.

If the journal article being sited is peer reviewed then you have a point. If it is not, then my point still stands. Is the journal article being sited a peer reviewed article? I don't know, I'm going on what Joe said here and he's usually right about those things.
 
If the journal article being sited is peer reviewed then you have a point. If it is not, then my point still stands. Is the journal article being sited a peer reviewed article? I don't know, I'm going on what Joe said here and he's usually right about those things.
You can reference somwthing without it being peer reviewed. If you want to say something is anshitty source because it hasn't been vetted, go for it, but that isn't what Joe stuck his dick in his mouth while saying. He said the article used a former NYpost article as its source, which it did not, it used a non peer reviewed article as its source. Also, if you are going to jump in the middle of a convo, get the ****ing facts, it would take you 2 seconds to open the God damn article and read it where it days something to the extent of "we previously discussed Drx claim here xxxxx and the information being discussed is coming from this source aaaaaa". ****ing be better.
 
They are not using the first article as a citation

Yes, they are. They cited it FIRST.

THEN they linked the non-journal source. Which isn't any better if you check the credentials.
This is, again, how non-science stuff gets press. Post something on a random site, and make it appear "official".
 
Is the journal article being sited a peer reviewed article? I don't know

No; it's not a journal, nor a journal article. The Post clearly states it is simply an "online repository". Even THEY do not misrepresent it as a journal.

They are relying on the idiots who regurgitate this crap to do that FOR them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BioHawk
Thats all well and good, that is not what you originally said.

I "originally said" they cited their own newspaper. And they did. In the first link. For the same story they ran three days before.

And, apparently when that doesn't catch enough press, you re-run it like it's new and pretend you're citing something different.
 
Pretty sure you read more science-based lit than this entire board combined...

But what do you do for a living?
Sit in his hut off the Yangtze river and pound on his keyboard all day waiting for his monthly ration of rice and bat meat.
 
You can reference somwthing without it being peer reviewed. If you want to say something is anshitty source because it hasn't been vetted, go for it, but that isn't what Joe stuck his dick in his mouth while saying. He said the article used a former NYpost article as its source, which it did not, it used a non peer reviewed article as its source. Also, if you are going to jump in the middle of a convo, get the ****ing facts, it would take you 2 seconds to open the God damn article and read it where it days something to the extent of "we previously discussed Drx claim here xxxxx and the information being discussed is coming from this source aaaaaa". ****ing be better.

You make the same stupid arguments in every thread. Come up with some new material and I'll take the time to vet your new point. Besides, I'm not debating the content of the article, I'm debating your point that anybody saying anything is a valid source versus if you want to actually have something worth listening to then you need a source that's been peer reviewed or confirmed from multiple reliable sources, depending on the context of the argument. Honestly, I don't give a shit what the article says if it isn't coming from reliable sources. If you can't understand why a non peer reviewed source isn't valid in the real world then maybe you shouldn't be continuing this debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
ADVERTISEMENT