More pseudo-science on Expose“.


PB: Abigail wrote: An article to push the lab virus legend.

The lab AND “virus” myths, both to cover up the real massive crime mechanics. What gain of function, if there is no virus!

The author (ashamed of his name?) poses as open-minded (peruses some Russian research), but his knowledge of both the Western and Russian political systems and regime’s modus operandi is dismal, while his “science” opinions — speculative & misleading.

The author’s intrusions, part-summarising, disfiguring and over-interpretating someone else’s scientific paper are disgusting breaches of professional and publication codes of ethics. Try to do it with copyrighted “Western” material, for which you have to pay user fee, too! How do I assess the translation and his opinions when he fails to show the Russian original and unaltered translation?

Who would be interested in his medical opinions when he has not yet figured out the gain of function, germ and lab frauds?

If he has a contribution to make, why not send a paper to Lancet, building on ALL previous research of importance in ALL languages, and adding his own findings rather than gossip and speculation.

Just buy a professional translation so you don’t need to assume multiple word usage, These details could be crucial to understanding a scientific paper.

Why does Expose support such publications? Not long ago it published Coleman’s pseudo-science filled with ad hominem against independent scientists, only because his mind is too lazy and heart too small to examine their evidence (in contrast to his anecdotes and hearsay).

By piotrbein