WANTED: Rational Coronavirus Analysis


Ambassador to the humans
Thanks for the reductionist Coronavirus analyses. It is all quite simple:
  1. Viruses are bad and contagious, and should be avoided (along with weirdos).
  2. Vaccines are good and virtuous, and should be encouraged.
I'll be honest I'm literally not sure if you're being honest and believe those statements even if they're more simplified or if you think they're too simple and silly and you believe something else.
in defense of reductionists: We probably would not even know about viruses without molecular biology, the most reductionist of all biologies.
Dr Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, thought that Man's greatest discovery was the 'particle nature' of matter.

Molecular biology is nicely reductionist and particular in nature, with a significant progress assist for the scientists from the engineers and craftsmen that invented and built their various microscopes, etc for the discovery process. Let's not ever forget the hardware guys.

Unfortunately, at least with this less-scientific case, virologists have been grasping, reductionly ... like with the sudden recommended transition from 3-foot distancing to 6-foot. Whatever ... from a nonlinear standpoint, a 2X increase in the distancing radius translates to 4X more 'safe space' and 8X more 'safe volume'. Progress. Forward!

--------[ WAIT ... THERE'S MORE!!! ]-------

Q: Who ‘played politics’ with the Coronavirus?

After the Trump administration suggested early on that the virus may have come from a Wuhan lab, this theory was immediately labeled a politically motived ‘conspiracy’ by the worldwide science community, and so could be dismissed out of hand. A brave MIT molecular biologist -- Dr Alina Chan -- boldly continued her work showing that, since the COVID-19 strain didn’t mutate with human transmission, it could have very well been developed in a lab, in, say, Wuhan, China, dismaying said worldwide science community (9/9):

It’s almost as if we’re missing the early phase [of viral evolution],” Chan marveled to [her friend and collaborator] Zhan. Or, as she put it in their paper, as if “it was already well adapted for human transmission.”​
The missing phase had happened in a lab, where the virus had been trained on human cells. Chan knew this was the third rail of potential explanations. At the time, conspiracy theorists were spinning bioweapon fantasies, and Chan was loath to give them any ammunition. But she also didn’t want to play politics by withholding her findings.​

Researcher Chan later shared her very practical career concerns with the lab-origin theory (4/13), as we live in a world where scientists really need to follow-the-money:

"We have all of these virus hunting programs spread everywhere, especially in developing countries. They’re worth hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not just that many, many groups of scientists all draw from this money. There’s a disincentive for them to advocate for an investigation into origins because it could shift the perception of their work as life-saving, as pandemic-preventing, to one that could actually result in a pandemic and in lives lost."​

BOTTOM LINE: When scientific disciplines worldwide are questioned, it’s critical to circle-the-wagons and selectively curate ‘facts’ … which makes those folks more like artists than scientists.

UPDATE, Atomic-level (non-artistic, 5/5): With virologists worldwide not questioning the COVID origin, the theory of natural emergence of the SARS2 virus has been the scientific consensus since early 2020, despite there being “no shred of evidence”. In this information vacuum, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is compelled to weigh in on the origins of this dangerous little SARS2 particle that has run rampant. Atomic Scientists extensively detail 1) why the virologists’ natural-emergence reasoning is flimsy, 2) why it certainly appears likely that SARS2 virus escaped from the Wuhan lab after gain-of-function procedures, and 3) why virologists are so darn incurious about this origin topic:

"Science is supposedly a self-correcting community of experts who constantly check each other’s work. So why didn’t other virologists point out that the [official virology] group’s argument was full of absurdly large holes? Perhaps because in today’s universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line."​
NOTE on this RATIONAL CORONAVIRUS ANALYSIS: With regards to this SARS-CoV-2 or 'SARS2' virus and its functionality, mutability, etc, the above article by Atomic Scientists provides everything you need to know ... and way way more.
The above techno-weaselry in virology should not surprise us, as the man-made worldwide ‘COVID crisis’ has corrupted Science through its coercive statism partnership with government and media (5/3). In the name of follow-the-science, governments forcibly locked healthy people in their own homes, “crossing a line that is not likely to get uncrossed”.

Very early in the pandemic, UK and USA politicians and health authorities justified their unprecedented lockdown strategies with global COVID-fatality projections by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London ... which – in hindsight – ended up being “wild exaggerations from a fundamentally flawed model” (5/5).
Last edited:


Ambassador to the humans
I'll just say it. You are terrible at expressing yourself. With almost every post you make I have no idea what you are actually trying to convey.
I'll just say it. You are terrible at expressing yourself. With almost every post you make I have no idea what you are actually trying to convey.
So, my posts are vague in their messaging … says a moderator of an online tech forum that practices censorship, surprisingly. (How nonlinear can you get?)

Not being one myself, I'm curious: Are statisticians uncomfortable with uncertainty? ... how about humor?
Last edited:


Ambassador to the humans
Obviously your posts are entirely clear and people want to engage with them. I'm clearly wrong. Clearly we are censorship heavy here.

Just so it is publically known - we warned this user multiple times about their behavior. I've personally reached out and tried to learn more about them to get a better understanding of why they post what they do with no response. They never once contacted a moderator or even responded to the concerns in any way. We did this multiple times. Then we banned then for a short period as an additional warning. This isn't a government or a public company. This is a private board with moderation. With all of that said we allow basically anything that isn't spam and doesn't break our TOS. Even posts that break the TOS are typically allowed us it's a first time offense. I have personally had users tell me they were going to have sex with my mother. I have had users threaten me with lawsuits. I've seen it all - and those users didn't immediately get banned. They were given another chance. You are one of the few users that did actually get a short ban so consider that.

It honestly wasn't clear if you were a bot for a while because you literally refused to address any issue and/or question we presented to you.

And yes your posts are vague. And no statisticians aren't uncomfortable with uncertainty - it's basically the entire reason we exist.
Last edited:


Less is more. Stay pure. Stay poor.

Personal questions - I am not trying to mess with you with these questions. I am just trying to figure you out. It seems like you get totally stuck on topics (e.g., football odds, then election, then pandemic), I am curious what other topics you have been obsessed with in the past? I am guessing you are too young for 911 (however the Johnny Carson image really threw me off- I am not even old enough to really get that reference), so maybe the earthquake in Haiti or 2008 recession or Boston bombing. Though you also don't write about BLM, which I wonder about as well as religious topics.

Second question, are there other forums you post all of this stuff on? Some of your posts are so long it seems like they would take quite a bit of time to draft out.

Lastly, what is your primary news source/outlet?
Last edited:

How Conservatives Have Failed to Expose Scientific Fascism Fauxcism (5/5).

More on Fauxcism, in theory and practice (5/5), including the good Doctor’s past work in gain-of-function research -- for increasing viral transmission between humans -- which was later transferred to a lab in Wuhan, of all places, imagine that. You'd think this might a discussion topic, but you’d be wrong.

The Atlantic (5/4): “Progressives … stressed the scientific evidence, and then veered away from it. For this subset, diligence against COVID-19 remains an expression of political identity” (perhaps old acquaintances Aldous Huxley and George Orwell can offer some insight here, especially when it comes to maltreating others). For this COVID-forever phenomenon, as with so much else, Trump and his “calamitous presidency” are to blame, as progressives were forced to take all the opposite positions of The Donald, naturally … how downright Scientific of them.

PSA: DON’T BUY THE FEARMONGERING! Ever rationalizing COVID restrictions, the CDC has noted that factors like COVID variants scariants could delay our herd immunity … a rational Johns Hopkins doc refutes that, with facts and figures (5/6; more here).
Last edited: