This discussion wasn't about the origin of Cov-19. His post was about NIH and Gain-of-Fuction research. There has been discussion about the origins of Cov-19. This was not a post about that topic.

I'm not referring to the post. I'm referring to the origin of the whole "gain of function" discussion in the news. I thought that would be obvious.

Your source was literally a parrot. My sources were the actual NIH website.

Point of order, you said I was parroting, not the source link. So "literally a parrot" is non-responsive to my argument.

And again, who cares it was a link to a copy/paste article? Do you think the info somehow degrades when it gets repeated? If so, I have some bad news for you, since everything you're reading here, was first composed somewhere else, then repeated. Is it somehow worse if the repetition is done by a human rather than a computer (although in the case of that site, it likely was a computer that did that repeating too).

And I wasn't attacking your source, that would be silly. I'm just pointing out that we're doing the same thing, posting links to someone else's info.

My point of posting this comment was to point out that your seemingly unwavering trust in this government institution in the face of evidence they lied is misplaced.

"Seemingly" is the operative word here. Your opinion in this case is based on far too little information and an outsized confidence in the correctness of your own stance. Based on what I have read from you so far, I suspect we are too far apart in the way we view the world for us to understand each other well, except observationally, and with little insight into the internal workings of our respective minds.

Also, because, unlike Ur Soul and the other Covid critics on this site, you downvote people's research you disagree with while you sit on a nice wallet of $$.

We have differing ideas of what constitutes scientific research. I haven't seen any real research here, it is reposting of information and a thin synthesis of source material. In particular, the level of rigor in verification is abysmal, compared to real research.

As for my downvote, I view it as countering near blind upvotes from two accounts (also nice wallets) that appear to be the same entity, based on their voting pattern.

And please don't talk about bias. Your bias in your name.

The name was just a joke, don't take it too seriously.