Big development: Woman who falsely testified in Jarrion Lawson case is one who popped Houlihan. Houlihan ordered a carne asada b

linelknelk wrote:

Trumper fact checker wrote:

The lab in Wuhan was under contract to a University of North Carolina lab. The UNC lab was playing around and creating virulent strains of COVID from bat samples obtained in the Wuhan region of China. It contacted with the Wuhan lab (paid them) to collect, store, and play around with covid samples as well. The UNC lab also had a classified "side" contract funded by the U.S. Army; supposedly to develop and antidote to American soldiers safe.

Ask yourself, WTF was the U.S. creating highly contagious version of samples from a place on the opposite side of the globe? Was the intent to create a vaccine to save the Chinese in case they got infected? How many other countries is the U.S. paying to collect samples of viruses for U.S. researchers to play around with? And, exactly why is the U.S. Army fuy unding labs to create dangerous versions of viruses, and working to create antidotes to protect U.S. soldiers?

I'm the research scientist who posted above. I work in a Federal lab and this is not how it works. Congress has banned us from collaborating in any way, shape, or form with Chinese scientists. No Federal money can flow to China to fund anything research-related. Furthermore, ...

rojo wrote:

runderun wrote:

I had decided to join the LRC subscribers club but I'm re-thinking after thus piece. Do I want to support journalism based on one party's account and barroom hearsay?

Gault is usually very good, but he's dropped the ball as a journalist here and he's basically writing as a fan. He hasn't waited to weigh the AIU evidence, he's taken the story of Houlihan's team and decided to believe it. Imagine judging a case in a court based on only one sides evidence.

LRC has seriously screwed the journalistic pooch here and descended into Fox News territory

So you only listen to media that you 100% agree with. I think that's a big problem. I purposely subscribe to the NY Times and Rush Limbaugh at the same time so I can get both sides. I don't want to be siloes.

Jonathan presented his take on it. It doesn't mean he's right. And i'm going to rib him for it on the podcast tomorrow.

Yes, he's writing a column. It's his opinion. that's why we labeled it as such. We clearly labeled it as column/opinion:

https://twitter.com/letsrundotcom/status/1404867745284603913

The one thing I'm certain of is no one knows 100% what happened. He specifically says we need to hear from the other side. But what do you want him to do, not have an opinion while we wait for the other side to actually issue their reasoning? The same side that was delaying charging for her 3+ months. That's absurd.

runderun wrote:

rojo wrote:

So you only listen to media that you 100% agree with. I think that's a big problem. I purposely subscribe to the NY Times and Rush Limbaugh at the same time so I can get both sides. I don't want to be siloes.

Jonathan presented his take on it. It doesn't mean he's right. And i'm going to rib him for it on the podcast tomorrow.

Yes, he's writing a column. It's his opinion. that's why we labeled it as such. We clearly labeled it as column/opinion:

https://twitter.com/letsrundotcom/status/1404867745284603913

The one thing I'm certain of is no one knows 100% what happened. He specifically says we need to hear from the other side. But what do you want him to do, not have an opinion while we wait for the other side to actually issue their reasoning? The same side that was delaying charging for her 3+ months. That's absurd.

That's not what I said at all, you're using a straw man there. I said his piece lacked credibility because he's based it entirely on one side's version of events. How can you form a considered opinion if you only listen to one side of the story? This might be an opinion piece rather than news, but all journalists have a responsibility to inform and not mislead the public. Jonathan either dismissed or ignored details within the BTC version of events that he should have questioned.

By comparison, look how Mario Fraioli has approached this case. He's asked relevant questions, just about the only US journalist that has, and he actually seems to have a relationship with Flanagan so this can't have been easy for him to write. Take a bow Mario, at least there's one person thinking in US T&F journalism right now

https://mailchi.mp/themorningshakeout/the-morning-shakeout-issue-292?e=769ef8d4dd

runderun wrote:

rojo wrote:

So you only listen to media that you 100% agree with. I think that's a big problem. I purposely subscribe to the NY Times and Rush Limbaugh at the same time so I can get both sides. I don't want to be siloes.

Jonathan presented his take on it. It doesn't mean he's right. And i'm going to rib him for it on the podcast tomorrow.

Yes, he's writing a column. It's his opinion. that's why we labeled it as such. We clearly labeled it as column/opinion:

https://twitter.com/letsrundotcom/status/1404867745284603913

The one thing I'm certain of is no one knows 100% what happened. He specifically says we need to hear from the other side. But what do you want him to do, not have an opinion while we wait for the other side to actually issue their reasoning? The same side that was delaying charging for her 3+ months. That's absurd.

That's not what I said at all, you're using a straw man there. I said his piece lacked credibility because he's based it entirely on one side's version of events. How can you form a considered opinion if you only listen to one side of the story? This might be an opinion piece rather than news, but all journalists have a responsibility to inform and not mislead the public. Jonathan either dismissed or ignored details within the BTC version of events that he should have questioned.

By comparison, look how Mario Fraioli has approached this case. He's asked relevant questions, just about the only US journalist that has, and he actually seems to have a relationship with Flanagan so this can't have been easy for him to write. Take a bow Mario, at least there's one person thinking in US T&F journalism right now

https://mailchi.mp/themorningshakeout/the-morning-shakeout-issue-292?e=769ef8d4dd

rojo wrote:

Here are 12 reasons why it would be reasonable for one to react differently if this was a Salazar athlete and not a Schumacher athlete.

1) Salazar was part of Atheltics west where there was known steroid use.

2)Salazar admitted he used steroids himself.

3) I had guys calling me unsolicited when Rupp was in college saying weird [expletive] was going down, with Rupp getting shots in hotel rooms.

4) I had his massage therapist calling me saying they saw weird [expletive] in the apartment.

5) I've got a picture of a nike lab report saying Rupp was on testerone in HS.

6) I know for a fact his coach has steroids in his bag and gives Rupp massages even though they have a masseuse on staff.

7) Also Slaney was popped.

8) I know Salazar violated the rules on Lcarinitine.

9) I know Salazar repeatedly violated US prescription med rules.

10) I know Salazar sent drugs across the world in hallowed out books.

11) I know Salazar loved Dr. Brown. Jerry - who initially was a co-coach with Salazar -on the other hand thought it was weird and stopped sending his guys there.

12) And last but not least I have the assistant coach in the group calling me up saying he's got grave concerns.