Air-Borne seems a fine piece of work that relates to much of what I wrote here -https://www.academia.edu/49083841/Virus_theory_Part_4_overview --. It was ranked in the top 0.1% of atmospheric science papers on academia .edu.... The only diffenernce is that I don't think the pathogens are alive.

Thanks. I'll watch for time stamps. I'm new here. Why on Earth would they be showing me 11 year old posts? It all seems quite clunky. Never saw the point of Twitter either.

And I replied to you of course, saying I'd joined 5 minutes previously. I'm finding Bluesky a bit clunky.

Those two don't seem to have blocked me. I can still comment on their posts.

I commented on a post by Carl Zimmer who linked to an 11 year old Guardian article (I did so twice, as I hadn't figured out the Bluesky system yet) and another by 'Rotanen' who quoted John Hawks' "pseudoscience" comment in Wikipedia. I can't find what else I commented on.

What was what in reply to? What did I say? I commented on about 3 or 4 posts. How can you tell they blocked you?

That article is 11 years out of date of course. You might want to catch up on some recent developments here --

www.academia.edu/113806848/Ec...

You realise that article is 11 years old? Science moves on. You might like to catch up with recent findings here -- www.academia.edu/113806848/Ec...

Yes. That's quoting John Hawks... who hadn't read the book(s). He has since recanted.

Hi Algis. Joined 5 minutes ago at Kathelijne's suggestion. Looking for some posts with meat on them.

A mild correction... The term pseudo-science relates to ideas that generate no testable hypotheses. The AAT has generated loads and most of them have produced positive results when tested.