Bobby. wrote on Feb 2
nd, 2020 at 5:44am:
At this stage we're unlikely to get a peer reviewed paper
that you would accept.
You seem to rely on a strawman argument as per
they guy in the video above.
He assumes that because it's an Indian paper it's untrustworthy.
At this stage I'll accept any peer review.
You realise they've withdrawn the paper right?
And it's not a strawman.
If you follow their methodology you get a different result. They chose to highlight HIV rather than one of the stronger partial matches.
They could have gone with any of the highly ranked results in the list, but they chose HIV. On further checking of their comments, it seems to be that they've done this not for notoriety but for genuine concern and to help with treatment.
They didn't let the data guide their outcome, they picked a salacious outcome and then drew a wildly inaccurate conclusion. Or that's at least how people like you are interpreting their analysis.
I'm sorry that your ignorance won't let you see it and your stubbornness and ego won't allow you to accept it when someone else shows it to you.
Again, like your failure to fact check, all of that is on you.
Look at the Wikipedia entry for the site,
Quote:bioRxiv (pronounced "bio-archive") is an open access preprint repository for the biological sciences co-founded by John Inglis and Richard Sever in November 2013. It is hosted by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL). As preprints, papers hosted on bioRxiv are not peer-reviewed, but undergo basic screening and checked against plagiarism. Readers may offer comments on the preprint. It was inspired by and intends to complement the arXiv repository, which mostly focuses on physics and connected disciplines, launched in 1991 by Paul Ginsparg (who also serves on the bioRxiv advisory board). It received support from both the CSHL and the Lourie Foundation. Additional funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative was confirmed in April 2017.
Now instead of linking to the pdf, if you look on the actual page of the site linking to it, they have a big highlighted warning,
Quote:bioRxiv is receiving many new papers on coronavirus 2019-nCoV. A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1Then if you scroll down in the comments you see one of the main authors,
Quote:This is a preliminary study. Considering the grave situation, it was shared in BioRxiv as soon as possible to have creative discussion on the fast evolution of SARS-like corona viruses. It was not our intention to feed into the conspiracy theories and no such claims are made here. While we appreciate the criticisms and comments provided by scientific colleagues at BioRxiv forum and elsewhere, the story has been differently interpreted and shared by social media and news platforms. We have positively received all criticisms and comments. To avoid further misinterpretation and confusions world-over, we have decided to withdraw the current version of the preprint and will get back with a revised version after reanalysis, addressing the comments and concerns. Thank you to all who contributed in this open-review process.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1#comment-4779677688This is why if you want to keep pushing this as a fact, that is, HIV - AIDS - amino acids were attached to this coronavirus by scientists and it's a bioweapon, take it to the Fringe.
It's not supported by the facts and is, therefore, a conspiracy theory without proof, it belongs there, not here.
The truth and facts are important. I don't know why you hate them so much.
This is why Light didn't like me because he was exposed time and time again and sharing incorrect information but was too proud to admit it. Be better.
Forum
Pages: 
Corona virus (Read 180465 times)
