lozenge stated: "So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings?"

To which you replied: "Vincent Racaniello is a professor of virology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello"

This is an appeal to the authority of Vincent's position as a professor

On its own you can interpret it like that, but this is a bit unfair. I have already explained what I meant with my comment, I even have a comment that predates the one you cite where I explicitly claim that he can be wrong... My point was not to say that he's right because he's a professor. It was to clarify that he's not a random YouTuber.

It seems silly, to me at least, to take external statements to this given thread and apply them as if they were said here. I took your comment at face value, all seven words and the URL. That was the entire statement, there was no mention of "he's an expert but he could be wrong"

When asked for evidence, the ONLY evidence that you provided, was that he IS an expert. Full stop.

At the time the message tree was vastly different. The messages were next to each other. It looked like this:

             GP
             /\
      Comment.  My 2nd reply with link.
        /

My first reply where I said he could be wrong.