Also I have just been made aware that only 22% of the experts claim to be aware of the DEFUSE grant proposal, versus 33% who claim to be aware of the nonexistent/fake Hanlen et al, 2022 study.
I think it’s reasonable to just completely disregard the opinions of experts who haven’t even heard of DEFUSE as it is such a crucial piece of evidence. Are these just bored virologists who read a few NYT articles and repeated the orthodoxy back? How could these people claim to be informed experts and not have heard of DEFUSE?
The thing is, given that 33% of the respondents were “familiar” with Hanlen et al, 2022, it is hard for me to know how to interpret this.
What exactly are these 22%? Are they bored virologists who check boxes at random? Did they really thoroughly read DEFUSE and then it had absolutely no impact on them, so they’re like some kind of zombie?
I think the conclusion to this is basically to completely disregard expert opinion: listen to arguments, not to credentials.
Also I have just been made aware that only 22% of the experts claim to be aware of the DEFUSE grant proposal, versus 33% who claim to be aware of the nonexistent/fake Hanlen et al, 2022 study.
I think it’s reasonable to just completely disregard the opinions of experts who haven’t even heard of DEFUSE as it is such a crucial piece of evidence. Are these just bored virologists who read a few NYT articles and repeated the orthodoxy back? How could these people claim to be informed experts and not have heard of DEFUSE?
https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069a_covid-origin-annex.pdf
Did you scroll down to see what people who were familiar with DEFUSE said?
The thing is, given that 33% of the respondents were “familiar” with Hanlen et al, 2022, it is hard for me to know how to interpret this.
What exactly are these 22%? Are they bored virologists who check boxes at random? Did they really thoroughly read DEFUSE and then it had absolutely no impact on them, so they’re like some kind of zombie?
I think the conclusion to this is basically to completely disregard expert opinion: listen to arguments, not to credentials.