Couldn’t have been very significant flaws if it was published three weeks later in Science. What were the flaws? Typos or something?
I just want to emphasis one thing, I started replying to this post. Everyone talking about genesis and how this incident isn’t really important and how church did this and that, it’s all possible. I replied to everything discussed here and it should be clear now that this case isn’t a good one to prove that Church is a bad actor that needs to be perma removed from the community. In fact it’s a case that shows how Church is being treated in a way that isn’t constructive to a scientific (or civil) debate. Other cases might be.
2 Likes
Can someone explain the “please stop” thing to me? It’s obviously supposed to troll me but I’ve forgotten where it even comes from.
1 Like
Would you allow the possibility that my opinion was formed by reading every single post in of all of those threads, and not from groupthink?
1 Like
Ohhhh dr John is that guy. Yeah he keeps popping up on my YouTube for some reason despite me having literally never watched a video on covid.
Is that a formatting thing or did he actually crop out the link in his post?
We’ve already established I’d posted the pdf report when other stated I didn’t post a link to the pdf in this episode.
And I don’t read ‘comments’ or cite comments because 'literally* anyone can leave a comment - sorry I missed that one of the 100 studies I have posted - easily done.
Bellingcat are on the case.
2 Likes
Church, it would help move the convo forward if you could give us a straight answer as to whether or not you cropped out the link from your post. I’m willing to consider the possibility that it’s a formatting snafu.
I made the post (and the screenshot) about 3 days before the comment was made. I believe. Either way, I wouldn’t levave myself open to such obvious opposition, if I had seen the comment (probably won’t have posted it until I substantiated the comment)
Of course, what you wanna believe will be up to you.
Did you deliberately crop out the link? Why?
The first case of now published report didn’t stick (teflon don) so now they’re drudging the posts, determined to find something that killed off the masses by believing the church - 'Churchill’s posts lead to the deaths of fuphmty subs they say… witchcraft.
You guys could just say “It’s a weird formatting error.” I can’t prove it wasn’t.
- @churchill posted a preprint arguing that COVID was present in Barcelona in March 2019, which raised immediate skepticism.
- There was a comment on the preprint that he linked to. @mosdef suggested that he read the comments to that particular preprint [because the comment contained a very relevant link to a report that likely disproved the posted claim.]
- @churchill responded that he did read the comment, and posted a screenshot of that comment.
- The comment that @churchill posted a screenshot of actually contained a link to a report. But @churchill’s screenshot did not include this link.
- @j8i3h289dn3x7 helpfully posted the link to the report.
- @churchill claims that he still can’t locate the report, despite having posted a screenshot of the original comment that provided the report link.
- I said this is crazy, because he literally screenshot the source of the report.
- @churchill again says he can’t possibly find the report.
3 Likes
I could but I’d be lying… and I don’t do that. I don’t remember.
Looks like I’m not trying to hide stuff, maybe acknowledging…
1 Like
An extremely cynical person might think he deliberately cropped the link out to maintain the fiction that he couldn’t find the link.
All the chef’s kisses
3 Likes
RFC: Someone (maybe, probably didn’t) cropped an image and then was refered to a comment and then posted the screenshot of the comment - Permaban #3
I didn’t see said comment - which is why I posted screenshot of said comment, after I was directed to it, to like correct the record.
can I get an undertitle - something like: ‘Churchill - Warning, might be a PREPRINT’
4 Likes