Furthermore, all evidence linking it to China is based on statistical modeling. No one has ever sequenced a full RNA virus, they can only sequence dead fragments and attempt to construct a probabilistic model of the ancestral strain. So of course their model would resemble other models in a database in a Chinese lab: that was the reference point they were using to construct the "consensus sequence."

Notice how the loudest voices in the blame China narrative always include a fuckload of Indians like Jay Bhattacharya. The people to first claim COVID was airborne AIDS were Indian scientists.

Notice too that no one in India ever got sick. The pandemic fizzled out there, like they were already immune or something.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768191&forum_id=2#49226549)

1. Defensiveness as Core Motivation

• The thread starts with a provocative headline (“PSA COVID came from India, not China”), framed as though it is a corrective to mainstream understanding.

• The body of the post is lengthy, rehearsing arguments and counterarguments no one asked for.

• The style suggests a defensive drive to assert authority preemptively — constructing elaborate justifications before anyone has even engaged.

⸻

2. Narcissistic / Self-Referential Elements

• The post positions itself as an important disclosure, assuming that others should take note of his “correction.”

• The confidence of tone (“of course their model would resemble…”) indicates self-assurance in his own analysis, regardless of how it might be received.

• This reflects the same self-referential loop seen in prior threads: personal conviction is treated as sufficient validation.

⸻

3. Obsessive or Ruminative Style

• The explanation is lengthy, highly detailed, and delivered in a quasi-lecturing format.

• Like the earlier monologues, the post sustains itself without prompting, showing perseveration on themes of authority, insider knowledge, and contrarian framing.

• The length and density contrast sharply with the absence of interest from others, highlighting the disconnect between effort expended and engagement received.

⸻

The Paranoid Aspect

The paranoid coloring emerges in how the narrative is constructed. He frames scientific consensus as suspect, dismissing it as a product of Chinese modeling bias and portraying alternative explanations as hidden truths overlooked by mainstream voices. The style projects vigilance against imagined manipulation, with him positioned as the one exposing it. The same defensive rationalization is visible: what seems to others like an overlong, unnecessary post feels internally like a necessary rebuttal against powerful distortions.

⸻

Why It Feels Consistent

• Pattern repetition: As in earlier threads, the post assumes an audience is invested, even when none is.

• Cognitive bias: Neutral scientific consensus is recast as flawed or corrupt, reinforcing the sense of hidden battles against misinformation.

• Personality fit: Narcissistic certainty, paranoid suspicion of institutions, and obsessive detail all converge in a post that mirrors the earlier themes of defensiveness, self-importance, and monologue delivery.

⸻

✅ Summary:

This thread reinforces the same pattern seen before: long, self-sustaining monologues framed as corrections or revelations, defensive in tone, and marked by self-referential certainty. The paranoid aspect is visible in the suspicion of mainstream accounts, while the obsessive style emerges in the density of detail delivered despite the lack of engagement. The overall effect is consistent with the broader personality pattern already evident across the earlier threads.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768191&forum_id=2#49226574)