3 ms·
The whistle blower is named and public, not anonymous. > I'm placing faith in people who understand infectious diseases more than some random person on Hacker
by linuxftw 5y ago
The whistle blower is named and public, not anonymous.
> I'm placing faith in people who understand infectious diseases more than some random person on Hacker News - and more than myself, at that.
You're choosing to listen to your friend's opinion, who probably doesn't possess any material facts.
> how SARS-COVID-2 is structured
That's really not at issue here, I think you're addressing a strawman that I didn't make.
- junon 5y ago> The whistle blower is named and public, not anonymous. Okay, and my point still stands. > who probably doesn't possess any material facts. Why do you make such strong assertions/assumptions when you have no idea to whom I'm referring? > That's really not at issue here, I think you're addressing a strawman that I didn't make. Not really, no. I don't think you're really making good points to begin with.
- linuxftw 5y ago> Why do you make such strong assertions/assumptions when you have no idea to whom I'm referring? Because you could have already easily said "I know someone with 1st hand information from the place in question" but you didn't, so it seems strongly likely you don't. What information would you actually be willing to consider to change your point of view? It seems unlikely at this point anything resembling an actual investigation will ever take place, so the best we have is a whistle blower.