Caution: Potentially Misleading Contents
Substantial peer feedback has been received that this record does not follow the norms of scientific rigour or balance, and thus the main claims may not stand the test of scientific scrutiny.
The PCR Pandemic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LToSnpz8A4
Fuck these lone doctors and fuck Youtube for spreading their unfounded theories through the general population, putting millions of lives at risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testin...
As a general rule, I don't take this kind of analysis via repeated repeated repeated repeated repeated repeated repeated application of Bayes' Rule with somewhat-to-completely arbitrary probabilities at each step very seriously. At all.
It's a kind of gish gallop [1] with additional window dressing purporting to wrap it all up into one easy number. From a probabilistic point of view it ignores any dependency between observed facts, which is a serious issue but not necessarily the most damning one.
This particular case is even worse than usual. According to a quick Ctrl-F-aided skim of the document, the author doesn't identify a single fact that increases the probability of zoonotic origin, which is extremely suspicious. If every single available fact in a complicated issue points to the same conclusion that's probably because you are messing with your facts, not because that's how things actually are.
After noticing the one-sided-ness of the Bayesian updates I rolled my eyes and closed the tab.
Doesn't that sound super fishy to you, too good to be true, doesn't sound like it would be legal if you think about it for a second, that sort of thing?