I assume the sentence you’re talking about is “The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to the virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case.”
Let’s define A = “is a main crackpot theory” and B = “genetic engineering claim.” This sentence says A implies B, and B is false. You seem to be interpreting this as B implies A—which might be true on average if we assume he thinks that A is common, but probably fails when you get to edge cases like inferring he thinks everybody who doesn’t agree with him is a crackpot.
but probably fails when you get to edge cases like inferring he thinks everybody who doesn’t agree with him is a crackpot.
I didn’t infer that. You might reread my comment.
In general, looking at individual pieces isn’t central. If you want an alternative interpretation, you should say:
What was the purpose of the January 1 meeting?
Why does the NIH feel that information about what happened in the meeting (and future discussion of the lab leak theory in Fauci’s emails) has to be hidden from the public?
What was so important for Farrar that Tedros should do and couldn’t wait for more then a day?
If you get answers to that we could form an alternative model of what happens and read the emails to determine how likely that model happens to be.
I assume the sentence you’re talking about is “The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to the virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case.”
Let’s define A = “is a main crackpot theory” and B = “genetic engineering claim.” This sentence says A implies B, and B is false. You seem to be interpreting this as B implies A—which might be true on average if we assume he thinks that A is common, but probably fails when you get to edge cases like inferring he thinks everybody who doesn’t agree with him is a crackpot.
I didn’t infer that. You might reread my comment.
In general, looking at individual pieces isn’t central. If you want an alternative interpretation, you should say:
What was the purpose of the January 1 meeting?
Why does the NIH feel that information about what happened in the meeting (and future discussion of the lab leak theory in Fauci’s emails) has to be hidden from the public?
What was so important for Farrar that Tedros should do and couldn’t wait for more then a day?
If you get answers to that we could form an alternative model of what happens and read the emails to determine how likely that model happens to be.