This is so stupid: Karl Ekdahl responds to a covid-skeptic whether they have "a single document" (sounds familiar?) that proves the existence of the virus. He replies "no". Ah well. But then goes on to link to "The aetiology of SARS: Koch's postulates fulfilled". Which is of course the 2004 paper!

Karl Ekdahl is from the ECDC, reacts in the most bureaucratic manner and while trying to be exceptionally helpful for a civil servant, just pours either oil into the machinery or is really clueless, well, or both?

Then Andrea Ammon from the ECDC also chimes in on 'DPR-2020-OUT-3176-KEEIEKh' and gets ever more bureaucratic and advises to go to a court of law and sue. While probably not a SkepticsSE question, I still want to ask: Is that a farce?

@fredsbend This 1996 paper (well, the abstract) suggests the opposition dropped off in the 70's. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11619007

But it isn't hard to find examples. This chiro argues against Germ theory, but seems to use a strawman concept: pathwaystofamilywellness.org/Wellness-Lifestyle/…

Here's another with a similar strawman: ignitechiropractic.com/the-germ-theory

@fredsbend The antivax stance of far too many chiropractors seems to derive from this germ theory denialism, but that's not a statement I could support with evidence.

@Oddthinking Just saw the road/tree one. Now that's HNQ in action: one upvote for the 'please stick to the rules' comment, and even despite post notice the f*-therules comment gets 40 upvotes?

With how sharp those curves are should be solid enough evidence about the validity as that looks like an accident waiting to happen

@JoeW Yeah, so what does reality say to that? On my fourth day as a driver I met just one such curve and paid the price. Stupid building projects have their own corner on the net. Insane constructions do exist. Further: some angles on 2D photos can be really deceptive. "Looks phishy" is an indicator, but a weak one. Certainly not enough to prove 'real or not'.

@LаngLаngС I am not saying it doesn't happen but based on that picture it is unlikely as they had plenty of room to make a safer curb and likely would have made construction easier as they had plenty of room to make a more gentle curve to get around it.

@JoeW Yeha, and me neither saying that it isn't a fake one, ultimately. What gets me a bit is that a user regularly complaining about the perceived average length alone of my posts is ignoring the rules of this site and plainly stating for this answer that such quality criteria would mean 'too much effort' and gets widely applauded for that from HNQ crowds while a mod comment on 'please increase the quality' is almost ignored. That's quite unfortunate.

Am currently laughing tears of vitriol. Back in May I wrote here that at least labs in Bavaria publicy announced to cut corners when it comes to nCov-testing, resulting in a predictably even more unreliable testing regime.

Now that very same lab using this unrelibale test was caught issuing false positive test results in 58 of 60 cases to one hospital that redid the testing.

The official line of reasoning given was: 'increased demand for tests and shortage of reagents made us choose different primers' (for test already done only to 50% of spec with an undisclosed amount of Cts), primers which turned out to be completely "incompatible" for the design. Once more: De omnibus dubitandum

seeing that close to 74.25 million have already voted which is about 54% of the 2016 total. That is crazy for numbers