ngaiorn

>regular old high protein food

You don't need to eat "high protein food" to get adequate protein.

Let's say an 80 kg moderately active man needs to eat 2600 kcal/day to maintain body weight. According to current guidelines, that man needs about 0.8g/kg of protein per day, or 64 grams per day.

White bread has about 2.6 grams of protein per 77 kcal.

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-facts/174924/wt1

You have: 2600 kcal / (77 kcal / 2.6 grams)

You want: grams

* 87.792208

/ 0.011390533

That works out to about 88 grams of protein per day eating nothing except white bread.

It's difficult to not get enough protein unless you're eating too few calories overall.

Nancy Pelosi is not a criminal. It's perfectly legal for her to trade stocks. It shouldn't be, but it is.

Trump is a fraudster, rapist, thief, and traitor. He is a criminal of the basest sort.

It's a mistake to put them in the same category. It's a matter of kind, not a matter of degree.

I have always been surprised by the pettiness and vulgarity of corruption. Sometimes Trump tries to steal $10,000,000,000 from the IRS, but sometimes he hawks branded Bibles for $59.99. I don't understand why someone with more money than he could spend in a dozen lifetimes regularly humiliates himself for a few grand.

Maybe. I haven't seen that proven. I can easily imagine that making the US technology sector function more efficiently leads to higher employment. The fact that the US is home to all of the big tech companies is a boon to American employees, and this form of immigration is a boon to the big tech companies.

>the second is covered in the most basic college economics courses.

You realize the courses don't stop at basic, right?

It is well-established that immigration (legal and otherwise) is good for the economy overall. Skilled immigrants are good for US businesses.

https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/permanent-residency-rule...

Immigrants start businesses at twice the rate of native-born Americans.

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/documents/... (page 1, though the citation has gone down the memory hole)

Some immigrants are complementary to native-born American workers rather than being in competition.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/page-one-economics/2...

Immigrants spend money and grow the market for goods produced by native-born Americans.

All these things are good for domestic labor. There is no reason to believe immigration is bad for American workers. Not everything is zero-sum, and that's basic economics.

>Who actually considers a loop a branch?

The machine?

>yes some of them expressed similar sentiments in private, even after publishing the paper.

Prove it.

>They steadily talked themselves into believing what they wanted to believe from the start, while ignoring all the facts that would point in the other direction.

They stated early on what reasons they had to believe it came from a lab and what evidence would disprove that, then got exactly the evidence that they previously said would disprove it. The unusual features of the virus are found in nature. The evidence that it was a lab leak is then reduced to "it was kind of near a lab", which is pretty wimpy.

>Of course they claimed it couldn't have been them, who wants to get the blame for COVID?

So why did the virologists in question called out their colleagues for unscientifically circling the wagons and, in their published work, explicitly decline to rule out the lab leak hypothesis?

You cannot point out any bad behavior in their publications or internal communications, so you resort to innuendo.

>it emerged right next to the only lab in the world doing experiments on coronaviruses

Lots of labs are doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. The "lion's share" is done in the United States. The Wuhan lab was unusually large, granted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02873-2

It is worth mentioning that state law may not abridge people's rights which are protected under the Constitution. It is perfectly legal under US law to make any number of violent statements as long as they do not rise to the level of true threats.

https://icap.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/T...

I am not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe this statement meets that bar.

>We have the Slack chat logs where virologists themselves say things like "it's so friggin likely it came from the lab", even after they published a paper claiming it was absolutely of natural origin.

They said those things before publishing their paper.

You can read the messages here:

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Proximal_Origin...

From what I can see, they start off by saying that the lab leak seems likely, and then re-evaluate in light of new evidence (see page 65, page 67 "again, it doesn't rule out lab infection/release, however, there is now no longer any ‘mysteries’ to explain"). This is just science being done. You can see them discover new evidence and update their beliefs. You can read how they revise their paper over time.

You can also see that they criticize other researchers for publicly decrying the lab leak theory absent sufficient evidence (page 23).

Here is the statement from the paper that you claim is a lie:

"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."

I think that statement is measured and supported by the available evidence. They state that they can't rule out a lab origin but that it does not seem likely. If you don't buy the conclusion, the evidence to support that conclusion is all accurately laid out in the paper. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

>You can find reputable sources for either theory.

So why are people citing 2020 reports from German intelligence agencies?

The expert consensus is that it was natural. It's not close. You are free to reject that consensus but should be aware that you are doing so.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...