FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Lab leak
Lab leak
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
Stick with peer-reviewed scientific research evidence that's in accredited publications always.
It's looking increasingly likely that humans will get infected with many potential pathogens crossing from other species, due to our ever encroaching into undisturbed wild habitats . As we've already done so much disruption, as well as disrespected wildlife so much, that our choices have pulled this 1 from wildlife to us, such as via markets and consumption practices imo. | |||
"Leak from Wuhan. I'm not saying it was but make your own mind up: Utube Lord Ridley on Covid lab leak investigation problems: " It was planted by the Russians as we said two years ago to weaken the world before they attack. | |||
"Leak from Wuhan. I'm not saying it was but make your own mind up: Utube Lord Ridley on Covid lab leak investigation problems: It was planted by the Russians as we said two years ago to weaken the world before they attack." Assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek? | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Leak from Wuhan. I'm not saying it was but make your own mind up: Utube Lord Ridley on Covid lab leak investigation problems: It was planted by the Russians as we said two years ago to weaken the world before they attack. Assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek?" Not ruling anything out in this mess of a world | |||
"Ok, so how to explain the findings that the European variant was in Italy and France before the wuhan version was officially known. It would have to be a leak at least 6 months earlier than reported." A credible link to peer-reviewed evidence that covid was in Europe 6 months before, c June 2019? | |||
| |||
"Anyone with a modicum of common sense and half a brain cell could see the lab leak (accidental before we fall down the biological weapon attach rabbit hole) is highly plausibile But none of the regular commentators here have either. Unless it's reported in the legacy media. In which case they believed it all along. Unless the legacy media tells then something different, in which case it's whatever they've been told most recently" It is plausible, but as there is currently more information suggesting the virus existed months before the Wuhan outbreak, then there is that it escaped a lab, then I think the people with a modicum of sense don't pay to much mind to that theory at the moment. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Leak from Wuhan. I'm not saying it was but make your own mind up: Utube Lord Ridley on Covid lab leak investigation problems: It was planted by the Russians as we said two years ago to weaken the world before they attack. Assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek? Not ruling anything out in this mess of a world" Really! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Leak from Wuhan. I'm not saying it was but make your own mind up: Utube Lord Ridley on Covid lab leak investigation problems: " Wait... still with this?! | |||
"The lab workers had their works Christmas do at the restaurant in the market. Things got a bit carried away and the rest is history. They hadn't planned on the vampire bats causing further problems" Vampire bats suck.... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The great thing about this thread is the block button" Absolutely, the virus forum is the best filter on fab. | |||
| |||
" The Lord Ridley who's main scientific work is about the mating habits of pheasants? " I don’t feel qualified to contribute to this thread, as I’m not a pheasant plucker but my dad was | |||
"Leak from Wuhan. I'm not saying it was but make your own mind up: Utube Lord Ridley on Covid lab leak investigation problems: " ..or make your mind up based on the only study actually carried out which was by the WHO. At the best of times it can take decades to trace this sort of thing. Decades. It's not like Google where you get "your" answer instantly. China covered up because they f*cked up. If that is because there was a leak or because they should have just done more sooner to stop a naturally occurring disease, nobody will know. The WHO said it was "extremely unlikely" be a lab leak but most probably jumped from bats to humans via an intermediary animal. If they don't know what the Chinese government have hidden then nobody else does. Certainly not a random guy on YouTube or Facebook. Unless there is new evidence the majority of those who work in the field concur with the WHO. | |||
"Leak from Wuhan. I'm not saying it was but make your own mind up: Utube Lord Ridley on Covid lab leak investigation problems: " GBN is mostly satirical. I wouldn't put too much stock in their wild conspiracy theories. | |||
| |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately." It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened." Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too." What evidence did they have? | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. What evidence did they have?" 4OD is your friend | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. What evidence did they have? 4OD is your friend" Is it worth watching, or is it just people speculating? | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. What evidence did they have? 4OD is your friend Is it worth watching, or is it just people speculating?" Lab leak is the way most avenues are looking at now as there is no evidence to the contrary. It pays to pay attention | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. What evidence did they have? 4OD is your friend Is it worth watching, or is it just people speculating? Lab leak is the way most avenues are looking at now as there is no evidence to the contrary. It pays to pay attention" There is plenty of evidence to the contrary as the only people who have seen all that is available first hand is the WHO. You can look up their conclusion. | |||
| |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. What evidence did they have? 4OD is your friend Is it worth watching, or is it just people speculating? Lab leak is the way most avenues are looking at now as there is no evidence to the contrary. It pays to pay attention" https://zenodo.org/record/6291628 Latest info says it’s more likely two zoonotic events at Wuhan market that were the start of the first human cases.There were plenty of illegal wild animals at that market. It mimics a pattern of the SARS 1 virus.- ie spread from Wildlife trade However it’s categorically states that this is not the source of Covid- potential animal sources are greatly under sampled. We are greatly underestimating the risk posed by wildlife as intermediary hosts of sabre coronavirus in China/Laos/Cambodia/ northern Thailand region and it is of the upmost urgency that more sero surveillance be undertaken in this region. | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. What evidence did they have? 4OD is your friend Is it worth watching, or is it just people speculating? Lab leak is the way most avenues are looking at now as there is no evidence to the contrary. It pays to pay attention" Which is reasonable to interpret as 'most avenues' that your self-serving biases have led you to. You don't actually quantify your interpretation, I note. | |||
| |||
"Another long read but NY Times article is interesting. Plenty of scientists don’t accept the WHO findings (mainly due to the interfering by China and 12 month delay that obviously reduces the chance of finding evidence, and the investigators )... https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/health/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak.amp.html The WHO investigation was majority Chinese scientists and China controlled all access to data. In addition the mission had no mandate to investigate laboratories where research on viruses was conducted. Doesn’t mean it was accidentally leaked from the lab but it also doesn’t mean it wasn’t. We will never know as the Chinese did not fully cooperate or provide unfettered access." In the absence of evidence, it's wise to retain an open mind, before reaching conclusions, other than that more data is needed, isn't it? | |||
"Another long read but NY Times article is interesting. Plenty of scientists don’t accept the WHO findings (mainly due to the interfering by China and 12 month delay that obviously reduces the chance of finding evidence, and the investigators )... https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/health/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak.amp.html The WHO investigation was majority Chinese scientists and China controlled all access to data. In addition the mission had no mandate to investigate laboratories where research on viruses was conducted. Doesn’t mean it was accidentally leaked from the lab but it also doesn’t mean it wasn’t. We will never know as the Chinese did not fully cooperate or provide unfettered access. In the absence of evidence, it's wise to retain an open mind, before reaching conclusions, other than that more data is needed, isn't it? " Absolutely 100%. There is insufficient evidence to confirm or discount a lab leak. Some say it is “unlikely” but they have not said “definitely not”. I do not for one moment believe anything nefarious. At worse it was a terrible accident. Whatever happened has clearly been covered up and the lack of proper cooperation by China just feeds the scepticism = “if there is nothing to hide then why not fully cooperate”. | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. What evidence did they have? 4OD is your friend Is it worth watching, or is it just people speculating? Lab leak is the way most avenues are looking at now as there is no evidence to the contrary. It pays to pay attention" This is simply not true at all. The science shows its most likely to have been transferred zoonotic. Just like the vast majority of viruses that infect us. | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. What evidence did they have? 4OD is your friend Is it worth watching, or is it just people speculating? Lab leak is the way most avenues are looking at now as there is no evidence to the contrary. It pays to pay attention This is simply not true at all. The science shows its most likely to have been transferred zoonotic. Just like the vast majority of viruses that infect us. " 
There continues to be research evidence published, which can clearly be of value to those with an interest in this. Due to the closed nature of the Chinese state, I'm not particularly interested, as little will have escaped some interference there. | |||
| |||
"Chinese virus + Chinese partners( Russia ) = you decide" Or read and understand the science. | |||
"Chinese virus + Chinese partners( Russia ) = you decide" People also forget about the letter and the number (which isn't allowed to be spoken about) Chinese technology fitted in the deepest of lockdowns by Russian labour but again we are not allowed to talk about this as you are associated as the 'tin hat brigade' if you do and you can't even write the letter and the number down in forums for censorship deleting you from existence! But again there's nothing to see here | |||
| |||
"If it was a lab leak why wasn't it spotted close to the lab but in the fish market hmmm because it's been brought into land hence it effected the globally unless someone is able to explain without asking Karen" The wet market (not fish market) was almost opposite the lab. The lab specialises in research into coronaviruses. Apparently (not seen corroboration on this one myself) the lab was being funded to undertake “gain of function” research. One of the first people to die of Covid was a scientist from the lab. Another scientist who revealed issues with the lab then disappeared never to be heard of again. It all coincided with Chinese new year with millions of people travelling around the world to be with family. Wuhan is a major travel hub. The first outbreak in Italy was traced to Chinese people visiting from Wuhan. None of that means it was a lab leak. However, it also doesn’t mean it wasn’t. We will never know because a 12 month delay and Chinese intervention compromised the integrity of the WHO investigation. And that WHO investigation is the only “evidence” we will ever see because China refused to allow further phases or follow up. | |||
| |||
"If it was a lab leak why wasn't it spotted close to the lab but in the fish market hmmm because it's been brought into land hence it effected the globally unless someone is able to explain without asking Karen The wet market (not fish market) was almost opposite the lab. The lab specialises in research into coronaviruses. Apparently (not seen corroboration on this one myself) the lab was being funded to undertake “gain of function” research. One of the first people to die of Covid was a scientist from the lab. Another scientist who revealed issues with the lab then disappeared never to be heard of again. It all coincided with Chinese new year with millions of people travelling around the world to be with family. Wuhan is a major travel hub. The first outbreak in Italy was traced to Chinese people visiting from Wuhan. None of that means it was a lab leak. However, it also doesn’t mean it wasn’t. We will never know because a 12 month delay and Chinese intervention compromised the integrity of the WHO investigation. And that WHO investigation is the only “evidence” we will ever see because China refused to allow further phases or follow up." Still doesn't explain how the poor countries were able to get infected without any visitors or able to fund their own travel via plane,boats. Or any other means it just becomes an unexplained mystery like the Bermuda triangle aliens UFOs | |||
| |||
"We will never know because a 12 month delay and Chinese intervention compromised the integrity of the WHO investigation. And that WHO investigation is the only “evidence” we will ever see because China refused to allow further phases or follow up." The WHO are the major player of this narrative they are the enforcers of this narrative do not believe anything they say and when you find out who funds them you realise they are the major players who played the world and pulled it off (for some anyway) those who believe and follow all and everything the World Health Organisation put out are the exact same people who don't want to take responsibility for their own health and would rather do whatever the WHO say thinking the WHO know best for their health over the advise given to them by their own family and friends | |||
"Biological weapons development gone wrong " in order to release the REAL bio-chemical weapon but voluntary administered | |||
| |||
"We will never know because a 12 month delay and Chinese intervention compromised the integrity of the WHO investigation. And that WHO investigation is the only “evidence” we will ever see because China refused to allow further phases or follow up. The WHO are the major player of this narrative they are the enforcers of this narrative do not believe anything they say and when you find out who funds them you realise they are the major players who played the world and pulled it off (for some anyway) those who believe and follow all and everything the World Health Organisation put out are the exact same people who don't want to take responsibility for their own health and would rather do whatever the WHO say thinking the WHO know best for their health over the advise given to them by their own family and friends" I believe you believe this | |||
"I can well believe it jumped from the animal world to humans but equally it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accidental lab leak. One thing I do find hard to believe us that if it was a lab leak it was done deliberately. It's physically possible that it was leaked from a lab. But outside of fringe loonies like Infowars and GBN, there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened. Best add Channel 4 Despatches to that list too. What evidence did they have? 4OD is your friend Is it worth watching, or is it just people speculating? Lab leak is the way most avenues are looking at now as there is no evidence to the contrary. It pays to pay attention This is simply not true at all. The science shows its most likely to have been transferred zoonotic. Just like the vast majority of viruses that infect us. " Do you have any sources for the research? | |||
"I believe you believe this "100% | |||
"If it was a lab leak why wasn't it spotted close to the lab but in the fish market hmmm because it's been brought into land hence it effected the globally unless someone is able to explain without asking Karen The wet market (not fish market) was almost opposite the lab. The lab specialises in research into coronaviruses. Apparently (not seen corroboration on this one myself) the lab was being funded to undertake “gain of function” research. One of the first people to die of Covid was a scientist from the lab. Another scientist who revealed issues with the lab then disappeared never to be heard of again. It all coincided with Chinese new year with millions of people travelling around the world to be with family. Wuhan is a major travel hub. The first outbreak in Italy was traced to Chinese people visiting from Wuhan. None of that means it was a lab leak. However, it also doesn’t mean it wasn’t. We will never know because a 12 month delay and Chinese intervention compromised the integrity of the WHO investigation. And that WHO investigation is the only “evidence” we will ever see because China refused to allow further phases or follow up. Still doesn't explain how the poor countries were able to get infected without any visitors or able to fund their own travel via plane,boats. Or any other means it just becomes an unexplained mystery like the Bermuda triangle aliens UFOs" Not quite sure what you are trying to say, especially as your next post said... “Bottom line is it's a bacterial infection/disease that anyone was able to catch and release even animals” Whether natural, man made, lab leak or natural transmission from animals, it still couldn’t spontaneously appear in other countries. It would have to have started somewhere and spread from there. The spread would have been enabled by humans and international travel. Do you have a source for these “poor countries” having no visitors? You realise that every single country in the world has airports and if they have a coast sea ports? That every country has trade and freight (with handlers)? | |||
"Bottom line is it's a bacterial infection/disease that anyone was able to catch and release even animals" It's not a bacterial disease. It's a virus. If it was bacterial, we'd have had a far easier time keeping it under control - we have antibiotics and bacteria do not mutate anywhere near as rapidly/easily. Single stranded RNA vs double stranded DNA... | |||
"We will never know because a 12 month delay and Chinese intervention compromised the integrity of the WHO investigation. And that WHO investigation is the only “evidence” we will ever see because China refused to allow further phases or follow up. The WHO are the major player of this narrative they are the enforcers of this narrative do not believe anything they say and when you find out who funds them you realise they are the major players who played the world and pulled it off (for some anyway) those who believe and follow all and everything the World Health Organisation put out are the exact same people who don't want to take responsibility for their own health and would rather do whatever the WHO say thinking the WHO know best for their health over the advise given to them by their own family and friends" Lolz
This is pretty funny. I especially like the part you suggest that we should listen to advise from people who know nothing about viruses and disease, over an organisation that's specific mission, is to know about viruses and disease. | |||
"We will never know because a 12 month delay and Chinese intervention compromised the integrity of the WHO investigation. And that WHO investigation is the only “evidence” we will ever see because China refused to allow further phases or follow up. The WHO are the major player of this narrative they are the enforcers of this narrative do not believe anything they say and when you find out who funds them you realise they are the major players who played the world and pulled it off (for some anyway) those who believe and follow all and everything the World Health Organisation put out are the exact same people who don't want to take responsibility for their own health and would rather do whatever the WHO say thinking the WHO know best for their health over the advise given to them by their own family and friends Lolz
This is pretty funny. I especially like the part you suggest that we should listen to advise from people who know nothing about viruses and disease, over an organisation that's specific mission, is to know about viruses and disease. "
Unfortunately it's indicative of much of the nonsense circulated here and on social media that ignores the wealth of research evidence.
Much of the BS was fed to us by Russia, who seek to destabilise the west and many bought into it.  | |||
" Do you have any sources for the research?" They are relying on the discredited WHO research that was highlighted above as being Chinese led. This was further discredited recently with DNA finds by independent studies but apparently *I* need to verify my sources when the scientific media is doing it for me daily... Some people believe everything and never seek information themselves. C | |||
" Do you have any sources for the research? They are relying on the discredited WHO research that was highlighted above as being Chinese led. This was further discredited recently with DNA finds by independent studies but apparently *I* need to verify my sources when the scientific media is doing it for me daily... Some people believe everything and never seek information themselves. C" There is no DNA evidence, viruses are made up of RNA. Knowledge gives you the power to analyse the information you read/watch. It will help to discount the bullshit. Stick to the science, and you cannot go wrong. | |||
" Do you have any sources for the research? They are relying on the discredited WHO research that was highlighted above as being Chinese led. This was further discredited recently with DNA finds by independent studies but apparently *I* need to verify my sources when the scientific media is doing it for me daily... Some people believe everything and never seek information themselves. C There is no DNA evidence, viruses are made up of RNA. Knowledge gives you the power to analyse the information you read/watch. It will help to discount the bullshit. Stick to the science, and you cannot go wrong. " *This virus is made up of RNA. | |||
" Do you have any sources for the research? They are relying on the discredited WHO research that was highlighted above as being Chinese led. This was further discredited recently with DNA finds by independent studies but apparently *I* need to verify my sources when the scientific media is doing it for me daily... Some people believe everything and never seek information themselves. C There is no DNA evidence, viruses are made up of RNA. Knowledge gives you the power to analyse the information you read/watch. It will help to discount the bullshit. Stick to the science, and you cannot go wrong. " You are right of course but it pays to Google this as it isn't like the batshit conspiracy theories which claim it alters your DNA. There have been DNA sequences found in breakdowns. The latest is Moderna related. You can find this in most places nowadays as it was even in the British and US media. C | |||
"Biological weapons development gone wrong in order to release the REAL bio-chemical weapon but voluntary administered" This. Nothing went wrong. Bio weapon released just as planned. Followed by Operation lockstep. Their plan to implement the great reset is on target because people refuse to believe there could actually be something a hell of a lot more sinister at play. Headed by the elite, the world's richest and most powerful people. Cashless society, social credit system, basic universal income - all be in place by 2030. Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum: "I own nothing and I'll be happy."  | |||
" Do you have any sources for the research? They are relying on the discredited WHO research that was highlighted above as being Chinese led. This was further discredited recently with DNA finds by independent studies but apparently *I* need to verify my sources when the scientific media is doing it for me daily... Some people believe everything and never seek information themselves. C There is no DNA evidence, viruses are made up of RNA. Knowledge gives you the power to analyse the information you read/watch. It will help to discount the bullshit. Stick to the science, and you cannot go wrong. You are right of course but it pays to Google this as it isn't like the batshit conspiracy theories which claim it alters your DNA. There have been DNA sequences found in breakdowns. The latest is Moderna related. You can find this in most places nowadays as it was even in the British and US media. C" For a lay person like me, any chance of explaining what this means and why it is important? Thanks | |||
" Do you have any sources for the research? They are relying on the discredited WHO research that was highlighted above as being Chinese led. This was further discredited recently with DNA finds by independent studies but apparently *I* need to verify my sources when the scientific media is doing it for me daily... Some people believe everything and never seek information themselves. C There is no DNA evidence, viruses are made up of RNA. Knowledge gives you the power to analyse the information you read/watch. It will help to discount the bullshit. Stick to the science, and you cannot go wrong. You are right of course but it pays to Google this as it isn't like the batshit conspiracy theories which claim it alters your DNA. There have been DNA sequences found in breakdowns. The latest is Moderna related. You can find this in most places nowadays as it was even in the British and US media. C" Credible evidence published in the appropriate literature, will never, of course, include contents of the general media, such as television, YouTube etc. The same follows for some of the other unsettling posts that a few people have made here. | |||
" Do you have any sources for the research? They are relying on the discredited WHO research that was highlighted above as being Chinese led. This was further discredited recently with DNA finds by independent studies but apparently *I* need to verify my sources when the scientific media is doing it for me daily... Some people believe everything and never seek information themselves. C" Nothing is "discredited" just because you or some small number random individuals say so on YouTube. Who are these people you trust more than the vast majority of virologists, epidemiologists and public health scientists? What makes "your" sources more reliable? | |||
| |||
"Biological weapons development gone wrong in order to release the REAL bio-chemical weapon but voluntary administered This. Nothing went wrong. Bio weapon released just as planned. Followed by Operation lockstep. Their plan to implement the great reset is on target because people refuse to believe there could actually be something a hell of a lot more sinister at play. Headed by the elite, the world's richest and most powerful people. Cashless society, social credit system, basic universal income - all be in place by 2030. Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum: "I own nothing and I'll be happy." "This is a very strange, disconnected set of "aims" for a global conspiracy. All financial except requiring a biological "weapon". Who found out this information and got it out of this ultra secret organisation? Why do you trust them more than anyone else? How did you find out about it? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000t034 | |||
"I don't madly waste my time jumping around the Internet, especially YouTube, for guff that's largely BS and dangerous
Stick with peer-reviewed scientific research evidence that's in accredited publications always.
It's looking increasingly likely that humans will get infected with many potential pathogens crossing from other species, due to our ever encroaching into undisturbed wild habitats . As we've already done so much disruption, as well as disrespected wildlife so much, that our choices have pulled this 1 from wildlife to us, such as via markets and consumption practices imo. " | |||
"Biological weapons development gone wrong in order to release the REAL bio-chemical weapon but voluntary administered This. Nothing went wrong. Bio weapon released just as planned. Followed by Operation lockstep. Their plan to implement the great reset is on target because people refuse to believe there could actually be something a hell of a lot more sinister at play. Headed by the elite, the world's richest and most powerful people. Cashless society, social credit system, basic universal income - all be in place by 2030. Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum: "I own nothing and I'll be happy."
This is a very strange, disconnected set of "aims" for a global conspiracy.
All financial except requiring a biological "weapon".
Who found out this information and got it out of this ultra secret organisation?
Why do you trust them more than anyone else? How did you find out about it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000t034"Sorry but quoting the bbc has just shown you for what you believe please watch UK Column for real news that reports only truth and proves where the truth has come from. Sorry but the bbc has shown itself for what it really is and it's certainly not a truth reporting news show, the last two years have proved this by what they report and how they reported it xx | |||
"Biological weapons development gone wrong in order to release the REAL bio-chemical weapon but voluntary administered This. Nothing went wrong. Bio weapon released just as planned. Followed by Operation lockstep. Their plan to implement the great reset is on target because people refuse to believe there could actually be something a hell of a lot more sinister at play. Headed by the elite, the world's richest and most powerful people. Cashless society, social credit system, basic universal income - all be in place by 2030. Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum: "I own nothing and I'll be happy."
This is a very strange, disconnected set of "aims" for a global conspiracy.
All financial except requiring a biological "weapon".
Who found out this information and got it out of this ultra secret organisation?
Why do you trust them more than anyone else? How did you find out about it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000t034
Sorry but quoting the bbc has just shown you for what you believe please watch UK Column for real news that reports only truth and proves where the truth has come from. Sorry but the bbc has shown itself for what it really is and it's certainly not a truth reporting news show, the last two years have proved this by what they report and how they reported it xx"UK column is a satirical site, isn't it? | |||
"UK column is a satirical site, isn't it? " Think what you want of it it's truthful and reports on current situations and shows them for what they really are they may have a laugh and possibly even take the pi*s a little but still a truth reporting news channel which cannot be said for the bbc covid has proved this | |||
"UK column is a satirical site, isn't it? Think what you want of it it's truthful and reports on current situations and shows them for what they really are they may have a laugh and possibly even take the pi*s a little but still a truth reporting news channel which cannot be said for the bbc covid has proved this" I had a look. There's loads of climate science misinformation and anti-science stuff. | |||
"Biological weapons development gone wrong in order to release the REAL bio-chemical weapon but voluntary administered This. Nothing went wrong. Bio weapon released just as planned. Followed by Operation lockstep. Their plan to implement the great reset is on target because people refuse to believe there could actually be something a hell of a lot more sinister at play. Headed by the elite, the world's richest and most powerful people. Cashless society, social credit system, basic universal income - all be in place by 2030. Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum: "I own nothing and I'll be happy."
This is a very strange, disconnected set of "aims" for a global conspiracy.
All financial except requiring a biological "weapon".
Who found out this information and got it out of this ultra secret organisation?
Why do you trust them more than anyone else? How did you find out about it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000t034
Sorry but quoting the bbc has just shown you for what you believe please watch UK Column for real news that reports only truth and proves where the truth has come from. Sorry but the bbc has shown itself for what it really is and it's certainly not a truth reporting news show, the last two years have proved this by what they report and how they reported it xx"What on the BBC did I quote? Conspiracies: The Secret Knowledge It tracks remarkably closely to what you wrote here. Write down to the "real news" and "truth" that you have pointed to. Is the BBC not telling the "truth" about Ukraine? What's "really" happening there? | |||
"UK column is a satirical site, isn't it? Think what you want of it it's truthful and reports on current situations and shows them for what they really are they may have a laugh and possibly even take the pi*s a little but still a truth reporting news channel which cannot be said for the bbc covid has proved this" What makes their journalism "truthful"? What makes them journalists rather than just people writing stuff? How is the "truth" assessed and balanced? If something was found to be untrue would that be a problem? Would it be possible that they could ever get anything wrong? | |||
| |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10" Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” | |||
"Is the BBC not telling the "truth" about Ukraine? What's "really" happening there?" The bbc are reporting lies about Ukraine yes, the bbc are making lies up so the ppl who believed the bbc's covid narrative can now jump straight onto the bbc,s Ukraine narrative and believe it all hook line and sinker | |||
"What makes their journalism "truthful"? What makes them journalists rather than just people writing stuff? How is the "truth" assessed and balanced? If something was found to be untrue would that be a problem? Would it be possible that they could ever get anything wrong?" UK Column don't need defending about whether they speak truth or not they report on what they find and provide all evidence of their findings and where they have found this from, a great example of UK Colum's reporting is when on March the 23rd 2020 they reported covid-19 corona virus had been downgraded to nothing a non dangerous nothing by the government on the 19th of March 2020. UK Column even asked the bbc why they weren't reporting this important game changing news, the bbc still haven't ever reported this news because the bbc knew if they reported the truth that covid-19 corona virus had been downgraded to nothing non dangerous then the bbc would have lost ALL the fear they had set and were trying to instill into the people by reporting false news and lies of covid-19. Sorry but the bbc are real bad liars and do not report truth. | |||
"I had a look. There's loads of climate science misinformation and anti-science stuff. " it's not misinformation you may have read it wrong or misunderstood it? Certainly no anti-science 'stuff' unless it's science which hasn't been proved yet so it's not quite science yet? Not sure where you were looking but just watch a news feed they tell it how it is and go live Monday Wednesday and Friday @ 1pm | |||
"Biological weapons development gone wrong in order to release the REAL bio-chemical weapon but voluntary administered This. Nothing went wrong. Bio weapon released just as planned. Followed by Operation lockstep. Their plan to implement the great reset is on target because people refuse to believe there could actually be something a hell of a lot more sinister at play. Headed by the elite, the world's richest and most powerful people. Cashless society, social credit system, basic universal income - all be in place by 2030. Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum: "I own nothing and I'll be happy."
This is a very strange, disconnected set of "aims" for a global conspiracy.
All financial except requiring a biological "weapon".
Who found out this information and got it out of this ultra secret organisation?
Why do you trust them more than anyone else? How did you find out about it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000t034
Sorry but quoting the bbc has just shown you for what you believe please watch UK Column for real news that reports only truth and proves where the truth has come from. Sorry but the bbc has shown itself for what it really is and it's certainly not a truth reporting news show, the last two years have proved this by what they report and how they reported it xx"UK Column is great. | |||
"We will never know because a 12 month delay and Chinese intervention compromised the integrity of the WHO investigation. And that WHO investigation is the only “evidence” we will ever see because China refused to allow further phases or follow up. The WHO are the major player of this narrative they are the enforcers of this narrative do not believe anything they say and when you find out who funds them you realise they are the major players who played the world and pulled it off (for some anyway) those who believe and follow all and everything the World Health Organisation put out are the exact same people who don't want to take responsibility for their own health and would rather do whatever the WHO say thinking the WHO know best for their health over the advise given to them by their own family and friends I believe you believe this "I believe it too. | |||
"Biological weapons development gone wrong in order to release the REAL bio-chemical weapon but voluntary administered This. Nothing went wrong. Bio weapon released just as planned. Followed by Operation lockstep. Their plan to implement the great reset is on target because people refuse to believe there could actually be something a hell of a lot more sinister at play. Headed by the elite, the world's richest and most powerful people. Cashless society, social credit system, basic universal income - all be in place by 2030. Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum: "I own nothing and I'll be happy."
This is a very strange, disconnected set of "aims" for a global conspiracy.
All financial except requiring a biological "weapon".
Who found out this information and got it out of this ultra secret organisation?
Why do you trust them more than anyone else? How did you find out about it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000t034
Sorry but quoting the bbc has just shown you for what you believe please watch UK Column for real news that reports only truth and proves where the truth has come from. Sorry but the bbc has shown itself for what it really is and it's certainly not a truth reporting news show, the last two years have proved this by what they report and how they reported it xx UK Column is great. "If it was satirical, it would be. But alas people genuinely believe their anti-science nonsense. | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”" Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? | |||
"Is the BBC not telling the "truth" about Ukraine? What's "really" happening there? The bbc are reporting lies about Ukraine yes, the bbc are making lies up so the ppl who believed the bbc's covid narrative can now jump straight onto the bbc,s Ukraine narrative and believe it all hook line and sinker " So what is "really" happening in the Ukraine? Have Neo-Nazis actually executed negotiators as your website claims? How was this verified as " the truth"? | |||
"What makes their journalism "truthful"? What makes them journalists rather than just people writing stuff? How is the "truth" assessed and balanced? If something was found to be untrue would that be a problem? Would it be possible that they could ever get anything wrong? UK Column don't need defending about whether they speak truth or not they report on what they find and provide all evidence of their findings and where they have found this from, a great example of UK Colum's reporting is when on March the 23rd 2020 they reported covid-19 corona virus had been downgraded to nothing a non dangerous nothing by the government on the 19th of March 2020. UK Column even asked the bbc why they weren't reporting this important game changing news, the bbc still haven't ever reported this news because the bbc knew if they reported the truth that covid-19 corona virus had been downgraded to nothing non dangerous then the bbc would have lost ALL the fear they had set and were trying to instill into the people by reporting false news and lies of covid-19. Sorry but the bbc are real bad liars and do not report truth." UK Column reported that Covid-19 has been downgraded to "nothing"? By whom was it downgraded? Do you mean that it was downgraded from being a "high consequence infectious disease"? You understand that is not the same as it being "nothing", don't you? The fact that it is 4% not as fatal as Ebola 50% (an HCID) does not mean that it is "nothing". Globally or nationally 4% of those infected dying is a huge number. Why do you believe the reporting or not reporting of this this obscure term "proves" anything. It requires some effort to look up. It appears that UK Column did not do so or did not understand what they saw... | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers?" Do you? | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you?" No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are? | |||
"Ok, so how to explain the findings that the European variant was in Italy and France before the wuhan version was officially known. It would have to be a leak at least 6 months earlier than reported." That's very simple. The common cold is a corona virus variant. They all are. Are you saying that because the common cold existed first there's no way it could have come from a lab? You do realise China has a track record for doing this right? Bird Flu, Swine Flue, SARS, MERS. All corona viruses and all originated in China. Most from Wuhan labs. It's bit that far fetched if you know your stuff. Friend of mine is a microbiologist. She's absolutely convinced it's lab bord. The virus itself was staged (as in had extra features added to it). Such as it thrives in warm indoor environments but not outside. Just the kind of properties that are routinely added to viri in labs across the planet. Because then it's easier to replicate them for study. | |||
"Leak from Wuhan. I'm not saying it was but make your own mind up: Utube Lord Ridley on Covid lab leak investigation problems: " You are about 2yrs too late for that one | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you? No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are?" I am not contesting. I stated that a) it wasn’t conclusive and b) the Chinese authorities still control the data and access to it. Which of those statements is not true? | |||
| |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you? No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are? I am not contesting. I stated that a) it wasn’t conclusive and b) the Chinese authorities still control the data and access to it. Which of those statements is not true?" You chose to question a figure orlf which you have no understanding: 'Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”' I have not. You can choose to assume that everything is a lie if you choose to, in order high case nobody knows anything, or you accept what is reasonable until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Particularly if the actual answer makes no difference to anything. You are fully aware that I've never suggested that there was no doubt in the WHO findings, but I also have no issue with accepting that they have provided the best answer possible. You literally cannot write that nor write that they have better access to data and simply know better through both knowledge and experience. I have no idea why. Only you do. | |||
"Ok, so how to explain the findings that the European variant was in Italy and France before the wuhan version was officially known. It would have to be a leak at least 6 months earlier than reported. That's very simple. The common cold is a corona virus variant. They all are. Are you saying that because the common cold existed first there's no way it could have come from a lab? You do realise China has a track record for doing this right? Bird Flu, Swine Flue, SARS, MERS. All corona viruses and all originated in China. Most from Wuhan labs. It's bit that far fetched if you know your stuff. Friend of mine is a microbiologist. She's absolutely convinced it's lab bord. The virus itself was staged (as in had extra features added to it). Such as it thrives in warm indoor environments but not outside. Just the kind of properties that are routinely added to viri in labs across the planet. Because then it's easier to replicate them for study." You are now stating that every single respiratory disease in the last twenty years has come from a lab in Wuhan? Based on no information and knowledge. Does your "friend" have access to the primary data? Has she visited Wuhan or spoken directly to anybody there? Of course, you would be inclined to listen to a friend, but if they have not seen the data and are not a specialist in the field they are just making a better guess than you. How come they are not being consulted on the matter? | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you? No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are? I am not contesting. I stated that a) it wasn’t conclusive and b) the Chinese authorities still control the data and access to it. Which of those statements is not true? You chose to question a figure orlf which you have no understanding: 'Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”' I have not. You can choose to assume that everything is a lie if you choose to, in order high case nobody knows anything, or you accept what is reasonable until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Particularly if the actual answer makes no difference to anything. You are fully aware that I've never suggested that there was no doubt in the WHO findings, but I also have no issue with accepting that they have provided the best answer possible. You literally cannot write that nor write that they have better access to data and simply know better through both knowledge and experience. I have no idea why. Only you do." Good job you are not a criminal barrister because that evidence would be inadmissible in court. It is akin to a crime scene where the chief suspect was also the forensics investigator who collected all the samples, catalogued and analysed them themselves, wrote a report and then refused anyone else access for over 12 months while having full access to the crime scene for the whole of that period. And then when you did allow other investigators access to your data you provided what you determined to be acceptable and then also prevented access to any comparative crime scenes insisting all investigation is undertaken based on your data. Again though, I am not saying it WAS a lab leak, I am saying the circumstances around the whole issue is suspicious and the investigation was hampered by and controlled by the Chinese. The WHO did not have unfettered access in a timely fashion. Why? However, we will never know so while the New Scientist article says the evidence seen does strengthen the argument for wet market and not lab leak, it is still not conclusive. Or are you saying it IS conclusive and 100% certain? | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you? No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are? I am not contesting. I stated that a) it wasn’t conclusive and b) the Chinese authorities still control the data and access to it. Which of those statements is not true? You chose to question a figure orlf which you have no understanding: 'Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”' I have not. You can choose to assume that everything is a lie if you choose to, in order high case nobody knows anything, or you accept what is reasonable until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Particularly if the actual answer makes no difference to anything. You are fully aware that I've never suggested that there was no doubt in the WHO findings, but I also have no issue with accepting that they have provided the best answer possible. You literally cannot write that nor write that they have better access to data and simply know better through both knowledge and experience. I have no idea why. Only you do. Good job you are not a criminal barrister because that evidence would be inadmissible in court. It is akin to a crime scene where the chief suspect was also the forensics investigator who collected all the samples, catalogued and analysed them themselves, wrote a report and then refused anyone else access for over 12 months while having full access to the crime scene for the whole of that period. And then when you did allow other investigators access to your data you provided what you determined to be acceptable and then also prevented access to any comparative crime scenes insisting all investigation is undertaken based on your data. Again though, I am not saying it WAS a lab leak, I am saying the circumstances around the whole issue is suspicious and the investigation was hampered by and controlled by the Chinese. The WHO did not have unfettered access in a timely fashion. Why? However, we will never know so while the New Scientist article says the evidence seen does strengthen the argument for wet market and not lab leak, it is still not conclusive. Or are you saying it IS conclusive and 100% certain?" Oh and BTW I did not question the figure, I quoted the article! [paraphrase for context] Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, [followed by actual quote] “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” The important point being that the Chinese authorities took the samples, undertook the analysis and wrote the report over 12 months before anyone else had any access. Not the number of samples! | |||
| |||
"covid been in china since 2012 if what i read is true " What did you read and where? | |||
| |||
"Leak from Wuhan. I'm not saying it was but make your own mind up: Utube Lord Ridley on Covid lab leak investigation problems: It was planted by the Russians as we said two years ago to weaken the world before they attack." You’ve been watching too many Bond films. I doubt Russia would want to weaken their own country. Unless they had their own secret antidote Mwohahaha! | |||
"So what is "really" happening in the Ukraine? Have Neo-Nazis actually executed negotiators as your website claims? How was this verified as " the truth"?" Because the Ukraine army have nazi patches on their arms of their uniforms..... or are they just pretend nazis do you mean? | |||
"So what is "really" happening in the Ukraine? Have Neo-Nazis actually executed negotiators as your website claims? How was this verified as " the truth"? Because the Ukraine army have nazi patches on their arms of their uniforms..... or are they just pretend nazis do you mean?" The entire Ukrainian army? If not then what proportion? In which regions? What insignia would that be? How do you know the Insignia is Nazi? What defines a Nazi insignia? | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you? No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are? I am not contesting. I stated that a) it wasn’t conclusive and b) the Chinese authorities still control the data and access to it. Which of those statements is not true? You chose to question a figure orlf which you have no understanding: 'Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”' I have not. You can choose to assume that everything is a lie if you choose to, in order high case nobody knows anything, or you accept what is reasonable until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Particularly if the actual answer makes no difference to anything. You are fully aware that I've never suggested that there was no doubt in the WHO findings, but I also have no issue with accepting that they have provided the best answer possible. You literally cannot write that nor write that they have better access to data and simply know better through both knowledge and experience. I have no idea why. Only you do. Good job you are not a criminal barrister because that evidence would be inadmissible in court. It is akin to a crime scene where the chief suspect was also the forensics investigator who collected all the samples, catalogued and analysed them themselves, wrote a report and then refused anyone else access for over 12 months while having full access to the crime scene for the whole of that period. And then when you did allow other investigators access to your data you provided what you determined to be acceptable and then also prevented access to any comparative crime scenes insisting all investigation is undertaken based on your data. Again though, I am not saying it WAS a lab leak, I am saying the circumstances around the whole issue is suspicious and the investigation was hampered by and controlled by the Chinese. The WHO did not have unfettered access in a timely fashion. Why? However, we will never know so while the New Scientist article says the evidence seen does strengthen the argument for wet market and not lab leak, it is still not conclusive. Or are you saying it IS conclusive and 100% certain?" This is not a criminal case and a pointless comparison. National governments collect their own data. As they do here and everywhere else. Your presentation of the Chinese data is exactly the same as all of the conspiracy and antivaxers on here and everywhere else that claim that no government, or pharma, data is reliable. So, no data is reliable. Regardless of anything that you believe the people outside of the Chinese government with the most comprehensive data is the WHO team. The only people who have visited the market and the lab and spoken to the Chinese scientists are the WHO team. They are, literally, the only people with all of the firsthand, primary information. Everybody else with any theory is using secondhand data or worse are filling in their own gaps. I have said consistently that the Chinese government are undoubtedly hiding all sorts of things, bit you don't actually know what. If it's a leak or incompetence in discovering the disease or poor reporting. I still do not understand why it is so difficult to acknowledge that the most valid conclusion is the one reached by the people from the WHO. That it is probably from the market. They said that the MOST likely outcome is animal to human infection. Why would you, or anyone else, choose to believe less reliable information and opinion over theirs? Just stick to explaining that. What do you, or anyone else, know that the WHO team does not that makes a different opinion more valid? | |||
"So what is "really" happening in the Ukraine? Have Neo-Nazis actually executed negotiators as your website claims? How was this verified as " the truth"? Because the Ukraine army have nazi patches on their arms of their uniforms..... or are they just pretend nazis do you mean?" The "Z" used by the Russians is an SS double lighting bolt on its side. Surely this is a coded Nazi symbol? That is the "truth" and I have provide you "proof". | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you? No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are? I am not contesting. I stated that a) it wasn’t conclusive and b) the Chinese authorities still control the data and access to it. Which of those statements is not true? You chose to question a figure orlf which you have no understanding: 'Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”' I have not. You can choose to assume that everything is a lie if you choose to, in order high case nobody knows anything, or you accept what is reasonable until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Particularly if the actual answer makes no difference to anything. You are fully aware that I've never suggested that there was no doubt in the WHO findings, but I also have no issue with accepting that they have provided the best answer possible. You literally cannot write that nor write that they have better access to data and simply know better through both knowledge and experience. I have no idea why. Only you do. Good job you are not a criminal barrister because that evidence would be inadmissible in court. It is akin to a crime scene where the chief suspect was also the forensics investigator who collected all the samples, catalogued and analysed them themselves, wrote a report and then refused anyone else access for over 12 months while having full access to the crime scene for the whole of that period. And then when you did allow other investigators access to your data you provided what you determined to be acceptable and then also prevented access to any comparative crime scenes insisting all investigation is undertaken based on your data. Again though, I am not saying it WAS a lab leak, I am saying the circumstances around the whole issue is suspicious and the investigation was hampered by and controlled by the Chinese. The WHO did not have unfettered access in a timely fashion. Why? However, we will never know so while the New Scientist article says the evidence seen does strengthen the argument for wet market and not lab leak, it is still not conclusive. Or are you saying it IS conclusive and 100% certain? This is not a criminal case and a pointless comparison. National governments collect their own data. As they do here and everywhere else. Your presentation of the Chinese data is exactly the same as all of the conspiracy and antivaxers on here and everywhere else that claim that no government, or pharma, data is reliable. So, no data is reliable. Regardless of anything that you believe the people outside of the Chinese government with the most comprehensive data is the WHO team. The only people who have visited the market and the lab and spoken to the Chinese scientists are the WHO team. They are, literally, the only people with all of the firsthand, primary information. Everybody else with any theory is using secondhand data or worse are filling in their own gaps. I have said consistently that the Chinese government are undoubtedly hiding all sorts of things, bit you don't actually know what. If it's a leak or incompetence in discovering the disease or poor reporting. I still do not understand why it is so difficult to acknowledge that the most valid conclusion is the one reached by the people from the WHO. That it is probably from the market. They said that the MOST likely outcome is animal to human infection. Why would you, or anyone else, choose to believe less reliable information and opinion over theirs? Just stick to explaining that. What do you, or anyone else, know that the WHO team does not that makes a different opinion more valid?" Oh Easy so you agree with me then but still try to position your response as if you don’t! Odd! I have already said I do not contest what is being said. I merely state that it isn’t conclusive due to the circumstances, Chinese prevarication and restrictions on timely and unfettered access to data and locations. The comparison to a criminal case is most certainly justified as it illustrates how the “evidence” would be inadmissible in a court case. If the evidence is inadmissible then the conclusions based on that evidence are also unreliable and a judge would rule them inadmissible too. That means an accidental lab leak is still plausible. Of course *I* do not know any more than *you* do. My personal opinion is irrelevant to the point I am making which is that the investigation and data are both unreliable and inconclusive (because of the actions of China). Saying “most likely” is not conclusive, ie my original point. | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you? No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are? I am not contesting. I stated that a) it wasn’t conclusive and b) the Chinese authorities still control the data and access to it. Which of those statements is not true? You chose to question a figure orlf which you have no understanding: 'Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”' I have not. You can choose to assume that everything is a lie if you choose to, in order high case nobody knows anything, or you accept what is reasonable until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Particularly if the actual answer makes no difference to anything. You are fully aware that I've never suggested that there was no doubt in the WHO findings, but I also have no issue with accepting that they have provided the best answer possible. You literally cannot write that nor write that they have better access to data and simply know better through both knowledge and experience. I have no idea why. Only you do. Good job you are not a criminal barrister because that evidence would be inadmissible in court. It is akin to a crime scene where the chief suspect was also the forensics investigator who collected all the samples, catalogued and analysed them themselves, wrote a report and then refused anyone else access for over 12 months while having full access to the crime scene for the whole of that period. And then when you did allow other investigators access to your data you provided what you determined to be acceptable and then also prevented access to any comparative crime scenes insisting all investigation is undertaken based on your data. Again though, I am not saying it WAS a lab leak, I am saying the circumstances around the whole issue is suspicious and the investigation was hampered by and controlled by the Chinese. The WHO did not have unfettered access in a timely fashion. Why? However, we will never know so while the New Scientist article says the evidence seen does strengthen the argument for wet market and not lab leak, it is still not conclusive. Or are you saying it IS conclusive and 100% certain? This is not a criminal case and a pointless comparison. National governments collect their own data. As they do here and everywhere else. Your presentation of the Chinese data is exactly the same as all of the conspiracy and antivaxers on here and everywhere else that claim that no government, or pharma, data is reliable. So, no data is reliable. Regardless of anything that you believe the people outside of the Chinese government with the most comprehensive data is the WHO team. The only people who have visited the market and the lab and spoken to the Chinese scientists are the WHO team. They are, literally, the only people with all of the firsthand, primary information. Everybody else with any theory is using secondhand data or worse are filling in their own gaps. I have said consistently that the Chinese government are undoubtedly hiding all sorts of things, bit you don't actually know what. If it's a leak or incompetence in discovering the disease or poor reporting. I still do not understand why it is so difficult to acknowledge that the most valid conclusion is the one reached by the people from the WHO. That it is probably from the market. They said that the MOST likely outcome is animal to human infection. Why would you, or anyone else, choose to believe less reliable information and opinion over theirs? Just stick to explaining that. What do you, or anyone else, know that the WHO team does not that makes a different opinion more valid? Oh Easy so you agree with me then but still try to position your response as if you don’t! Odd! I have already said I do not contest what is being said. I merely state that it isn’t conclusive due to the circumstances, Chinese prevarication and restrictions on timely and unfettered access to data and locations. The comparison to a criminal case is most certainly justified as it illustrates how the “evidence” would be inadmissible in a court case. If the evidence is inadmissible then the conclusions based on that evidence are also unreliable and a judge would rule them inadmissible too. That means an accidental lab leak is still plausible. Of course *I* do not know any more than *you* do. My personal opinion is irrelevant to the point I am making which is that the investigation and data are both unreliable and inconclusive (because of the actions of China). Saying “most likely” is not conclusive, ie my original point." Oh and just realised you said: “They are, literally, the only people with all of the firsthand, primary information.” By which you mean WHO team. That is “literally” the point. They do NOT have the “firsthand, primary information”. Their data is secondary. The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention are the only organisation with the primary data with samples they collected, catalogued and analysed over 12 months before the WHO were given access. The WHO have secondary data and indeed the New Scientist article references the report written by CCDCP. | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you? No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are? I am not contesting. I stated that a) it wasn’t conclusive and b) the Chinese authorities still control the data and access to it. Which of those statements is not true? You chose to question a figure orlf which you have no understanding: 'Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”' I have not. You can choose to assume that everything is a lie if you choose to, in order high case nobody knows anything, or you accept what is reasonable until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Particularly if the actual answer makes no difference to anything. You are fully aware that I've never suggested that there was no doubt in the WHO findings, but I also have no issue with accepting that they have provided the best answer possible. You literally cannot write that nor write that they have better access to data and simply know better through both knowledge and experience. I have no idea why. Only you do. Good job you are not a criminal barrister because that evidence would be inadmissible in court. It is akin to a crime scene where the chief suspect was also the forensics investigator who collected all the samples, catalogued and analysed them themselves, wrote a report and then refused anyone else access for over 12 months while having full access to the crime scene for the whole of that period. And then when you did allow other investigators access to your data you provided what you determined to be acceptable and then also prevented access to any comparative crime scenes insisting all investigation is undertaken based on your data. Again though, I am not saying it WAS a lab leak, I am saying the circumstances around the whole issue is suspicious and the investigation was hampered by and controlled by the Chinese. The WHO did not have unfettered access in a timely fashion. Why? However, we will never know so while the New Scientist article says the evidence seen does strengthen the argument for wet market and not lab leak, it is still not conclusive. Or are you saying it IS conclusive and 100% certain? This is not a criminal case and a pointless comparison. National governments collect their own data. As they do here and everywhere else. Your presentation of the Chinese data is exactly the same as all of the conspiracy and antivaxers on here and everywhere else that claim that no government, or pharma, data is reliable. So, no data is reliable. Regardless of anything that you believe the people outside of the Chinese government with the most comprehensive data is the WHO team. The only people who have visited the market and the lab and spoken to the Chinese scientists are the WHO team. They are, literally, the only people with all of the firsthand, primary information. Everybody else with any theory is using secondhand data or worse are filling in their own gaps. I have said consistently that the Chinese government are undoubtedly hiding all sorts of things, bit you don't actually know what. If it's a leak or incompetence in discovering the disease or poor reporting. I still do not understand why it is so difficult to acknowledge that the most valid conclusion is the one reached by the people from the WHO. That it is probably from the market. They said that the MOST likely outcome is animal to human infection. Why would you, or anyone else, choose to believe less reliable information and opinion over theirs? Just stick to explaining that. What do you, or anyone else, know that the WHO team does not that makes a different opinion more valid? Oh Easy so you agree with me then but still try to position your response as if you don’t! Odd! I have already said I do not contest what is being said. I merely state that it isn’t conclusive due to the circumstances, Chinese prevarication and restrictions on timely and unfettered access to data and locations. The comparison to a criminal case is most certainly justified as it illustrates how the “evidence” would be inadmissible in a court case. If the evidence is inadmissible then the conclusions based on that evidence are also unreliable and a judge would rule them inadmissible too. That means an accidental lab leak is still plausible. Of course *I* do not know any more than *you* do. My personal opinion is irrelevant to the point I am making which is that the investigation and data are both unreliable and inconclusive (because of the actions of China). Saying “most likely” is not conclusive, ie my original point." The WHO have not said that their conclusion is "conclusive". I've never said that there was no chance of a lab leak. However, the WHO think it's LESS likely than animal to human infection in the market. Is the WHO conclusion the best one available? If yes, write "yes". That's easy. | |||
"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10 Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” Do you know if 33 is a significant number or not? Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Do you? No. Without knowing what I'm talking about I will accept the multiple sources of information, from those who have seen and understand the primary data. Lab leak theories are backed by those who have not. Do you have any experience of the topic with which to contest the WHO findings or those of these researchers? Why are you better placed to assess this data second, third or fourth hand than they are? I am not contesting. I stated that a) it wasn’t conclusive and b) the Chinese authorities still control the data and access to it. Which of those statements is not true? You chose to question a figure orlf which you have no understanding: 'Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”' I have not. You can choose to assume that everything is a lie if you choose to, in order high case nobody knows anything, or you accept what is reasonable until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Particularly if the actual answer makes no difference to anything. You are fully aware that I've never suggested that there was no doubt in the WHO findings, but I also have no issue with accepting that they have provided the best answer possible. You literally cannot write that nor write that they have better access to data and simply know better through both knowledge and experience. I have no idea why. Only you do. Good job you are not a criminal barrister because that evidence would be inadmissible in court. It is akin to a crime scene where the chief suspect was also the forensics investigator who collected all the samples, catalogued and analysed them themselves, wrote a report and then refused anyone else access for over 12 months while having full access to the crime scene for the whole of that period. And then when you did allow other investigators access to your data you provided what you determined to be acceptable and then also prevented access to any comparative crime scenes insisting all investigation is undertaken based on your data. Again though, I am not saying it WAS a lab leak, I am saying the circumstances around the whole issue is suspicious and the investigation was hampered by and controlled by the Chinese. The WHO did not have unfettered access in a timely fashion. Why? However, we will never know so while the New Scientist article says the evidence seen does strengthen the argument for wet market and not lab leak, it is still not conclusive. Or are you saying it IS conclusive and 100% certain? This is not a criminal case and a pointless comparison. National governments collect their own data. As they do here and everywhere else. Your presentation of the Chinese data is exactly the same as all of the conspiracy and antivaxers on here and everywhere else that claim that no government, or pharma, data is reliable. So, no data is reliable. Regardless of anything that you believe the people outside of the Chinese government with the most comprehensive data is the WHO team. The only people who have visited the market and the lab and spoken to the Chinese scientists are the WHO team. They are, literally, the only people with all of the firsthand, primary information. Everybody else with any theory is using secondhand data or worse are filling in their own gaps. I have said consistently that the Chinese government are undoubtedly hiding all sorts of things, bit you don't actually know what. If it's a leak or incompetence in discovering the disease or poor reporting. I still do not understand why it is so difficult to acknowledge that the most valid conclusion is the one reached by the people from the WHO. That it is probably from the market. They said that the MOST likely outcome is animal to human infection. Why would you, or anyone else, choose to believe less reliable information and opinion over theirs? Just stick to explaining that. What do you, or anyone else, know that the WHO team does not that makes a different opinion more valid? Oh Easy so you agree with me then but still try to position your response as if you don’t! Odd! I have already said I do not contest what is being said. I merely state that it isn’t conclusive due to the circumstances, Chinese prevarication and restrictions on timely and unfettered access to data and locations. The comparison to a criminal case is most certainly justified as it illustrates how the “evidence” would be inadmissible in a court case. If the evidence is inadmissible then the conclusions based on that evidence are also unreliable and a judge would rule them inadmissible too. That means an accidental lab leak is still plausible. Of course *I* do not know any more than *you* do. My personal opinion is irrelevant to the point I am making which is that the investigation and data are both unreliable and inconclusive (because of the actions of China). Saying “most likely” is not conclusive, ie my original point. Oh and just realised you said: “They are, literally, the only people with all of the firsthand, primary information.” By which you mean WHO team. That is “literally” the point. They do NOT have the “firsthand, primary information”. Their data is secondary. The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention are the only organisation with the primary data with samples they collected, catalogued and analysed over 12 months before the WHO were given access. The WHO have secondary data and indeed the New Scientist article references the report written by CCDCP." ...and if you paid closer you would realise that I also wrote, relative to the Chinese Government. The WHO have been to the lab (first hand), been to the market (first hand), spoken to the scientists (first hand). They have seen every piece of information available. Every piece of information that the Chinese are sharing. Every other person with an opinion knows less. If you want to continue to talk narrowly about just one article as if that is all that exists, then you can continue, on your own. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So basically Easy you took a whole lot of words and a seemingly contrarian view to actually just, you know, agree with me. Glad we got there in the end "Yet you still cannot agree with the WHO findings  | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything." Nope. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. There are also some people who support Putin due to the "true" "proven" "facts" that they saw on a dodgy website. You're all caught up | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything." The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all "The WHO is one of the most corrupt organisations out there but most of you will believe anything they say | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
The WHO is one of the most corrupt organisations out there but most of you will believe anything they say"The WHO are possibly corrupt or possibly not. Personally, I have no way of knowing. I am interested to know why you state that and on what basis? | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
The WHO is one of the most corrupt organisations out there but most of you will believe anything they say
The WHO are possibly corrupt or possibly not. Personally, I have no way of knowing. I am interested to know why you state that and on what basis?"Reiner Fuellmich and his investigative team, the Corona Ausschuss, has hours and hours and hours of interviews with experts and whistleblowers on the matter. | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
The WHO is one of the most corrupt organisations out there but most of you will believe anything they say
The WHO are possibly corrupt or possibly not. Personally, I have no way of knowing. I am interested to know why you state that and on what basis?
Reiner Fuellmich and his investigative team, the Corona Ausschuss, has hours and hours and hours of interviews with experts and whistleblowers on the matter."Who is he and what/why was he investigating? Are these viewable by us? | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
The WHO is one of the most corrupt organisations out there but most of you will believe anything they say
The WHO are possibly corrupt or possibly not. Personally, I have no way of knowing. I am interested to know why you state that and on what basis?
Reiner Fuellmich and his investigative team, the Corona Ausschuss, has hours and hours and hours of interviews with experts and whistleblowers on the matter.
Who is he and what/why was he investigating? Are these viewable by us?"He is a German attorney, also practices in the US. He is investigating everything around the pandemic. He has hours of interviews with his team available for public viewing. I can't share links here. Try a search with above words and keep an open mind. But MSM won't give you the half of it. | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
The WHO is one of the most corrupt organisations out there but most of you will believe anything they say
The WHO are possibly corrupt or possibly not. Personally, I have no way of knowing. I am interested to know why you state that and on what basis?
Reiner Fuellmich and his investigative team, the Corona Ausschuss, has hours and hours and hours of interviews with experts and whistleblowers on the matter."Ah. Nuremberg 2.0 Corona Ausschuss – roughly translated as “corona committee” – to investigate “crimes against humanity” committed by governments and corporations regarding COVID-19. Trying to prove a global conspiracy that Covid does not exist. His latest one trying to prove that Covid is the same as influenza. All failing and therefore "proving" that the legal system everywhere in the world is also "corrupt" rather than just working correctly
An entirely new and exciting conspiracy rabbit hole. Just lots of random interviews with a corporate fraud lawyer and anyone that will speak to him.
Lots of money in donations though, so that's nice for him... | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
The WHO is one of the most corrupt organisations out there but most of you will believe anything they say"I'm certainly not going to believe what you say despite your extensive medical knowledge...oh, wait... | |||
| |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all "Yet every time I suggest that I write the WHO conclusion or suggest that scientists and medica are better judges of the data you disagree with me. You claimed to be ignoring me a month ago, yet here you are again... | |||
| |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
Yet every time I suggest that I write the WHO conclusion or suggest that scientists and medica are better judges of the data you disagree with me.
You claimed to be ignoring me a month ago, yet here you are again..."Yeah but Easy how can I ignore you with such quality banter? It’s like I try but then...there you are! Fast becoming my guilty pleasure! I have never questioned the WHO themselves nor the scientists involved in the investigation. They will have undoubtedly had the best intentions. However, any research is only as good as the data collected or that you have access to. In this case we have established that China tightly controlled both along with the timing as well as matching investigators 1:1 with state sponsored Chinese scientists. The findings can only be based on what they were allowed to see. All of which I said three weeks back on this thread. My point has remained totally consistent. No need for any mental gymnastics from me | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
Yet every time I suggest that I write the WHO conclusion or suggest that scientists and medica are better judges of the data you disagree with me.
You claimed to be ignoring me a month ago, yet here you are again...
Yeah but Easy how can I ignore you with such quality banter? It’s like I try but then...there you are! Fast becoming my guilty pleasure!
I have never questioned the WHO themselves nor the scientists involved in the investigation. They will have undoubtedly had the best intentions. However, any research is only as good as the data collected or that you have access to. In this case we have established that China tightly controlled both along with the timing as well as matching investigators 1:1 with state sponsored Chinese scientists. The findings can only be based on what they were allowed to see.
All of which I said three weeks back on this thread. My point has remained totally consistent. No need for any mental gymnastics from me "Nothing has changed though. You are just "flat-Earthing" it as any conspiracy theorist would. None of the data is reliable, therefore it's all lies, therefore anyone can think what they want. Not true. The WHO scientists are perfectly well able to understand what is and is not trustworthy or reliable. It is not one individual. It is a group with their work reviewed and assessed. They are neither stupid not naive. There conclusions are not based on uncritically believing what they are told. Neither you, nor anyone else, is placed to second guess them. Doubt all you want bit they have the best information AVAILABLE and the best POSSIBLE knowledge and ability to assess its validity. Chinese scientists, state sponsored or not, are perfectly capable of being completely correct. You remain in no situation to judge that. The WHO are much, much better able to than you or anyone else. Are you able to accept that? | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
Yet every time I suggest that I write the WHO conclusion or suggest that scientists and medica are better judges of the data you disagree with me.
You claimed to be ignoring me a month ago, yet here you are again...
Yeah but Easy how can I ignore you with such quality banter? It’s like I try but then...there you are! Fast becoming my guilty pleasure!
I have never questioned the WHO themselves nor the scientists involved in the investigation. They will have undoubtedly had the best intentions. However, any research is only as good as the data collected or that you have access to. In this case we have established that China tightly controlled both along with the timing as well as matching investigators 1:1 with state sponsored Chinese scientists. The findings can only be based on what they were allowed to see.
All of which I said three weeks back on this thread. My point has remained totally consistent. No need for any mental gymnastics from me
Nothing has changed though. You are just "flat-Earthing" it as any conspiracy theorist would.
None of the data is reliable, therefore it's all lies, therefore anyone can think what they want.
Not true. The WHO scientists are perfectly well able to understand what is and is not trustworthy or reliable. It is not one individual. It is a group with their work reviewed and assessed. They are neither stupid not naive.
There conclusions are not based on uncritically believing what they are told. Neither you, nor anyone else, is placed to second guess them. Doubt all you want bit they have the best information AVAILABLE and the best POSSIBLE knowledge and ability to assess its validity.
Chinese scientists, state sponsored or not, are perfectly capable of being completely correct. You remain in no situation to judge that. The WHO are much, much better able to than you or anyone else.
Are you able to accept that?"Oh Easy we were so close. You agreed but now want to twist again! It’s like you always need to win (though quite what you think you are winning is beyond me). I maintain what I have said the whole way through: The evidence is still not conclusive. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Make of that what you will! | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
Yet every time I suggest that I write the WHO conclusion or suggest that scientists and medica are better judges of the data you disagree with me.
You claimed to be ignoring me a month ago, yet here you are again...
Yeah but Easy how can I ignore you with such quality banter? It’s like I try but then...there you are! Fast becoming my guilty pleasure!
I have never questioned the WHO themselves nor the scientists involved in the investigation. They will have undoubtedly had the best intentions. However, any research is only as good as the data collected or that you have access to. In this case we have established that China tightly controlled both along with the timing as well as matching investigators 1:1 with state sponsored Chinese scientists. The findings can only be based on what they were allowed to see.
All of which I said three weeks back on this thread. My point has remained totally consistent. No need for any mental gymnastics from me
Nothing has changed though. You are just "flat-Earthing" it as any conspiracy theorist would.
None of the data is reliable, therefore it's all lies, therefore anyone can think what they want.
Not true. The WHO scientists are perfectly well able to understand what is and is not trustworthy or reliable. It is not one individual. It is a group with their work reviewed and assessed. They are neither stupid not naive.
There conclusions are not based on uncritically believing what they are told. Neither you, nor anyone else, is placed to second guess them. Doubt all you want bit they have the best information AVAILABLE and the best POSSIBLE knowledge and ability to assess its validity.
Chinese scientists, state sponsored or not, are perfectly capable of being completely correct. You remain in no situation to judge that. The WHO are much, much better able to than you or anyone else.
Are you able to accept that?
Oh Easy we were so close. You agreed but now want to twist again! It’s like you always need to win (though quite what you think you are winning is beyond me).
I maintain what I have said the whole way through: The evidence is still not conclusive. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Make of that what you will!"Here we go again, telling me that I am "twisting" something. This usually comes from the tin foil hat wearers. You are accusing me of doing what you do. I have never disagreed about the data not being conclusive. You are well aware of that however patronising you attempt to be. I am just hoping that you are able to provide an unambiguous statement that the WHO scientists, and many others, know more about this than anybody else and that their assessment is the most likely to be correct, whatever the caveats. Is that true? Are you able to agree with that? | |||
| |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
Yet every time I suggest that I write the WHO conclusion or suggest that scientists and medica are better judges of the data you disagree with me.
You claimed to be ignoring me a month ago, yet here you are again...
Yeah but Easy how can I ignore you with such quality banter? It’s like I try but then...there you are! Fast becoming my guilty pleasure!
I have never questioned the WHO themselves nor the scientists involved in the investigation. They will have undoubtedly had the best intentions. However, any research is only as good as the data collected or that you have access to. In this case we have established that China tightly controlled both along with the timing as well as matching investigators 1:1 with state sponsored Chinese scientists. The findings can only be based on what they were allowed to see.
All of which I said three weeks back on this thread. My point has remained totally consistent. No need for any mental gymnastics from me
Nothing has changed though. You are just "flat-Earthing" it as any conspiracy theorist would.
None of the data is reliable, therefore it's all lies, therefore anyone can think what they want.
Not true. The WHO scientists are perfectly well able to understand what is and is not trustworthy or reliable. It is not one individual. It is a group with their work reviewed and assessed. They are neither stupid not naive.
There conclusions are not based on uncritically believing what they are told. Neither you, nor anyone else, is placed to second guess them. Doubt all you want bit they have the best information AVAILABLE and the best POSSIBLE knowledge and ability to assess its validity.
Chinese scientists, state sponsored or not, are perfectly capable of being completely correct. You remain in no situation to judge that. The WHO are much, much better able to than you or anyone else.
Are you able to accept that?
Oh Easy we were so close. You agreed but now want to twist again! It’s like you always need to win (though quite what you think you are winning is beyond me).
I maintain what I have said the whole way through: The evidence is still not conclusive. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Make of that what you will!
Here we go again, telling me that I am "twisting" something. This usually comes from the tin foil hat wearers.
You are accusing me of doing what you do. I have never disagreed about the data not being conclusive. You are well aware of that however patronising you attempt to be.
I am just hoping that you are able to provide an unambiguous statement that the WHO scientists, and many others, know more about this than anybody else and that their assessment is the most likely to be correct, whatever the caveats.
Is that true? Are you able to agree with that?"I am going to assume (despite the flat earth comment earlier) that you are not accusing me of wearing a tin foil hat right? There has not been anything ambiguous about what I have said. You agree the data and investigation are not conclusive. Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary. As I have said above, if this was a criminal trial, that evidence would be inadmissible. It is the very fact that they are unable to be conclusive that means that while the evidence they have seen (collected, analysed, controlled by China) indicates it is most likely Covid transferred to humans in the wet market, it still cannot rule out a lab leak which remains plausible. That isn’t a conspiracy theory, it is just a fact based on the actual situation. It also doesn’t mean I believe that. It simple means we are still not in a position to discount or hand wave away the lab leak theory. There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence but that too would therefore be inadmissible. | |||
| |||
"just agree to disagree " Where’s the fun in that? Oh and we don’t disagree. Easy has already said he agrees with the points I have made so not quite sure where he is going with all this? | |||
"just agree to disagree Where’s the fun in that? Oh and we don’t disagree. Easy has already said he agrees with the points I have made so not quite sure where he is going with all this?" Who'll blink first | |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
The WHO is one of the most corrupt organisations out there but most of you will believe anything they say
The WHO are possibly corrupt or possibly not. Personally, I have no way of knowing. I am interested to know why you state that and on what basis?
Reiner Fuellmich and his investigative team, the Corona Ausschuss, has hours and hours and hours of interviews with experts and whistleblowers on the matter.
Ah. Nuremberg 2.0
Corona Ausschuss – roughly translated as “corona committee” – to investigate “crimes against humanity” committed by governments and corporations regarding COVID-19.
Trying to prove a global conspiracy that Covid does not exist.
His latest one trying to prove that Covid is the same as influenza.
All failing and therefore "proving" that the legal system everywhere in the world is also "corrupt" rather than just working correctly
An entirely new and exciting conspiracy rabbit hole. Just lots of random interviews with a corporate fraud lawyer and anyone that will speak to him.
Lots of money in donations though, so that's nice for him..."That's your opinion | |||
| |||
"I just popped to the corner shop, did I miss anything. The WHO still think that the most likely cause was a species jump from the Wuhan market and not a lab leak, but there is no definitive evidence and is never likely to be with or without China's full cooperation. Oh look at that...the same words Easy! Even though this was already said further up prior to several hundred more words. As I said, glad you agree with me after all
Yet every time I suggest that I write the WHO conclusion or suggest that scientists and medica are better judges of the data you disagree with me.
You claimed to be ignoring me a month ago, yet here you are again...
Yeah but Easy how can I ignore you with such quality banter? It’s like I try but then...there you are! Fast becoming my guilty pleasure!
I have never questioned the WHO themselves nor the scientists involved in the investigation. They will have undoubtedly had the best intentions. However, any research is only as good as the data collected or that you have access to. In this case we have established that China tightly controlled both along with the timing as well as matching investigators 1:1 with state sponsored Chinese scientists. The findings can only be based on what they were allowed to see.
All of which I said three weeks back on this thread. My point has remained totally consistent. No need for any mental gymnastics from me
Nothing has changed though. You are just "flat-Earthing" it as any conspiracy theorist would.
None of the data is reliable, therefore it's all lies, therefore anyone can think what they want.
Not true. The WHO scientists are perfectly well able to understand what is and is not trustworthy or reliable. It is not one individual. It is a group with their work reviewed and assessed. They are neither stupid not naive.
There conclusions are not based on uncritically believing what they are told. Neither you, nor anyone else, is placed to second guess them. Doubt all you want bit they have the best information AVAILABLE and the best POSSIBLE knowledge and ability to assess its validity.
Chinese scientists, state sponsored or not, are perfectly capable of being completely correct. You remain in no situation to judge that. The WHO are much, much better able to than you or anyone else.
Are you able to accept that?
Oh Easy we were so close. You agreed but now want to twist again! It’s like you always need to win (though quite what you think you are winning is beyond me).
I maintain what I have said the whole way through: The evidence is still not conclusive. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Make of that what you will!
Here we go again, telling me that I am "twisting" something. This usually comes from the tin foil hat wearers.
You are accusing me of doing what you do. I have never disagreed about the data not being conclusive. You are well aware of that however patronising you attempt to be.
I am just hoping that you are able to provide an unambiguous statement that the WHO scientists, and many others, know more about this than anybody else and that their assessment is the most likely to be correct, whatever the caveats.
Is that true? Are you able to agree with that?
I am going to assume (despite the flat earth comment earlier) that you are not accusing me of wearing a tin foil hat right?
There has not been anything ambiguous about what I have said.
You agree the data and investigation are not conclusive.
Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right?
But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.
As I have said above, if this was a criminal trial, that evidence would be inadmissible.
It is the very fact that they are unable to be conclusive that means that while the evidence they have seen (collected, analysed, controlled by China) indicates it is most likely Covid transferred to humans in the wet market, it still cannot rule out a lab leak which remains plausible.
That isn’t a conspiracy theory, it is just a fact based on the actual situation.
It also doesn’t mean I believe that. It simple means we are still not in a position to discount or hand wave away the lab leak theory. There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence but that too would therefore be inadmissible."So do you agree with the WHO or not? Yes or no? | |||
| |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater." If I understood the question and knew who you were addressing I'd make an attempt to answer... | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater." There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true." Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it." Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response." Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view. | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view." As already said ad infinitum this “evidence” would be inadmissible in court and so, therefore, would conclusions or supposition based on that evidence. | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view. As already said ad infinitum this “evidence” would be inadmissible in court and so, therefore, would conclusions or supposition based on that evidence. " You know better than the people who do the job and have seen the information. A "Fab expert". That is all allowed. It doesn't actually require justification, it's just interesting to see the argument laid out as to how genuine expert understanding can be set aside for opinion. | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view. As already said ad infinitum this “evidence” would be inadmissible in court and so, therefore, would conclusions or supposition based on that evidence. " Just for clarity, I have referred to this as "information" and "data" and not "evidence". I have not implied certainty. Only that the conclusions of the WHO will be better informed than anyone else's. Have you seen any of the information to know if it is admissible or not? Would you understand it if you did? | |||
| |||
"It's worthwhile studying more recent publidhed evidence, from credible sources, that updates our understanding. There's nothing pushing conclusions that lab leaks etc. were responsible any further. " Hi Sophie. The discussion that rattles on is not (for me) about whether it is more/most/highly likely to have been the wet market rather than a lab leak (certainly a more palatable outcome). It is that there is currently nothing conclusive or definitive from WHO (the wording is very specific focused on strengthens the argument for wet market) which means a lab leak cannot simply be dismissed. Whether it was or wasn’t a lab leak or wet market is actually not relevant to the discussion I have been having. The points I have been making remain consistent: 1. Not conclusive 2. The data informing the investigation was/is fully controlled by Chinese authorities Both of those statements are true. | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view. As already said ad infinitum this “evidence” would be inadmissible in court and so, therefore, would conclusions or supposition based on that evidence. Just for clarity, I have referred to this as "information" and "data" and not "evidence". I have not implied certainty. Only that the conclusions of the WHO will be better informed than anyone else's. Have you seen any of the information to know if it is admissible or not? Would you understand it if you did?" “Fab expert” well if the cap fits Easy
Are you trolling? I have already said the WHO investigation will know more than anyone except the Chinese authorities. Look back up the thread. Pretty sure I have said it more than once.
That doesn’t change the two points I have been making all the way through (as repeated above to Sophie) and that you agreed with.
As for semantics, the “information” and “data” (if you prefer) would still be inadmissible were this a trial. I gave an explanation for why waaaay up the thread. | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view. As already said ad infinitum this “evidence” would be inadmissible in court and so, therefore, would conclusions or supposition based on that evidence. Just for clarity, I have referred to this as "information" and "data" and not "evidence". I have not implied certainty. Only that the conclusions of the WHO will be better informed than anyone else's. Have you seen any of the information to know if it is admissible or not? Would you understand it if you did? “Fab expert” well if the cap fits Easy
Are you trolling? I have already said the WHO investigation will know more than anyone except the Chinese authorities. Look back up the thread. Pretty sure I have said it more than once.
That doesn’t change the two points I have been making all the way through (as repeated above to Sophie) and that you agreed with.
As for semantics, the “information” and “data” (if you prefer) would still be inadmissible were this a trial. I gave an explanation for why waaaay up the thread. "I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm not an expert. They are. I am being very clear about that. Not sure how that is confusing. I think that the WHO scientists understand the information better than I do and are better able to assess how reliable the data that they are looking at is. Therefore, of they come to the conclusion that one outcome is more likely than another then they are more likely to be correct in that assessment than anyone else. There is no court, there is no trial. Either expert knowledge and understanding on a very technical topic carries more weight than unqualified opinion or it doesn't. Which is it? | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view. As already said ad infinitum this “evidence” would be inadmissible in court and so, therefore, would conclusions or supposition based on that evidence. Just for clarity, I have referred to this as "information" and "data" and not "evidence". I have not implied certainty. Only that the conclusions of the WHO will be better informed than anyone else's. Have you seen any of the information to know if it is admissible or not? Would you understand it if you did? “Fab expert” well if the cap fits Easy
Are you trolling? I have already said the WHO investigation will know more than anyone except the Chinese authorities. Look back up the thread. Pretty sure I have said it more than once.
That doesn’t change the two points I have been making all the way through (as repeated above to Sophie) and that you agreed with.
As for semantics, the “information” and “data” (if you prefer) would still be inadmissible were this a trial. I gave an explanation for why waaaay up the thread.
I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm not an expert. They are. I am being very clear about that. Not sure how that is confusing.
I think that the WHO scientists understand the information better than I do and are better able to assess how reliable the data that they are looking at is. Therefore, of they come to the conclusion that one outcome is more likely than another then they are more likely to be correct in that assessment than anyone else.
There is no court, there is no trial. Either expert knowledge and understanding on a very technical topic carries more weight than unqualified opinion or it doesn't. Which is it?"I will ignore your point on a “trial” as you know full well it illustrates the point on provenance and reliability of data/info/evidence. I have also not claimed any expertise. You are just asking the same question with different words again (how many times now?) I’m not going to keep repeating myself and stand by all I have said. I have not questioned WHO expertise as that would just be silly and have already acknowledged more than once they have access to data etc you and I do not (obviously)! BUT that STILL doesn’t mean the two statements I have made again and again are anything except true and correct. You have already agreed with them, ie... 1. Not conclusive (most/more/highly/strengthen but note not definite/certain). 2. Data/samples collected, catalogued, analysed, reported by CCDCP over 12 months before allowing restricted/controlled access by WHO. Ergo...you still cannot rule out the lab leak theory even if it looks far less likely. I’m really not sure what you are trying to achieve? | |||
| |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view. As already said ad infinitum this “evidence” would be inadmissible in court and so, therefore, would conclusions or supposition based on that evidence. Just for clarity, I have referred to this as "information" and "data" and not "evidence". I have not implied certainty. Only that the conclusions of the WHO will be better informed than anyone else's. Have you seen any of the information to know if it is admissible or not? Would you understand it if you did? “Fab expert” well if the cap fits Easy
Are you trolling? I have already said the WHO investigation will know more than anyone except the Chinese authorities. Look back up the thread. Pretty sure I have said it more than once.
That doesn’t change the two points I have been making all the way through (as repeated above to Sophie) and that you agreed with.
As for semantics, the “information” and “data” (if you prefer) would still be inadmissible were this a trial. I gave an explanation for why waaaay up the thread.
I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm not an expert. They are. I am being very clear about that. Not sure how that is confusing.
I think that the WHO scientists understand the information better than I do and are better able to assess how reliable the data that they are looking at is. Therefore, of they come to the conclusion that one outcome is more likely than another then they are more likely to be correct in that assessment than anyone else.
There is no court, there is no trial. Either expert knowledge and understanding on a very technical topic carries more weight than unqualified opinion or it doesn't. Which is it?
I will ignore your point on a “trial” as you know full well it illustrates the point on provenance and reliability of data/info/evidence. I have also not claimed any expertise.
You are just asking the same question with different words again (how many times now?) I’m not going to keep repeating myself and stand by all I have said. I have not questioned WHO expertise as that would just be silly and have already acknowledged more than once they have access to data etc you and I do not (obviously)!
BUT that STILL doesn’t mean the two statements I have made again and again are anything except true and correct. You have already agreed with them, ie...
1. Not conclusive (most/more/highly/strengthen but note not definite/certain).
2. Data/samples collected, catalogued, analysed, reported by CCDCP over 12 months before allowing restricted/controlled access by WHO.
Ergo...you still cannot rule out the lab leak theory even if it looks far less likely.
I’m really not sure what you are trying to achieve?"Please do not continue to avoid the very simple and direct questions. I am not debating if the information is contestable. I am not arguing with the two points that you keep restating for no reason whatsoever. I am stating something very unambiguously. The WHO have come to the conclusion that it is more likely that Covid-19 originated from a species jump in the Wuhan market. Should the current WHO conclusion be accepted as the best explanation or not? Does anyone else have a better-informed suggestion? | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view. As already said ad infinitum this “evidence” would be inadmissible in court and so, therefore, would conclusions or supposition based on that evidence. Just for clarity, I have referred to this as "information" and "data" and not "evidence". I have not implied certainty. Only that the conclusions of the WHO will be better informed than anyone else's. Have you seen any of the information to know if it is admissible or not? Would you understand it if you did? “Fab expert” well if the cap fits Easy
Are you trolling? I have already said the WHO investigation will know more than anyone except the Chinese authorities. Look back up the thread. Pretty sure I have said it more than once.
That doesn’t change the two points I have been making all the way through (as repeated above to Sophie) and that you agreed with.
As for semantics, the “information” and “data” (if you prefer) would still be inadmissible were this a trial. I gave an explanation for why waaaay up the thread.
I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm not an expert. They are. I am being very clear about that. Not sure how that is confusing.
I think that the WHO scientists understand the information better than I do and are better able to assess how reliable the data that they are looking at is. Therefore, of they come to the conclusion that one outcome is more likely than another then they are more likely to be correct in that assessment than anyone else.
There is no court, there is no trial. Either expert knowledge and understanding on a very technical topic carries more weight than unqualified opinion or it doesn't. Which is it?
I will ignore your point on a “trial” as you know full well it illustrates the point on provenance and reliability of data/info/evidence. I have also not claimed any expertise.
You are just asking the same question with different words again (how many times now?) I’m not going to keep repeating myself and stand by all I have said. I have not questioned WHO expertise as that would just be silly and have already acknowledged more than once they have access to data etc you and I do not (obviously)!
BUT that STILL doesn’t mean the two statements I have made again and again are anything except true and correct. You have already agreed with them, ie...
1. Not conclusive (most/more/highly/strengthen but note not definite/certain).
2. Data/samples collected, catalogued, analysed, reported by CCDCP over 12 months before allowing restricted/controlled access by WHO.
Ergo...you still cannot rule out the lab leak theory even if it looks far less likely.
I’m really not sure what you are trying to achieve?
Please do not continue to avoid the very simple and direct questions. I am not debating if the information is contestable. I am not arguing with the two points that you keep restating for no reason whatsoever.
I am stating something very unambiguously.
The WHO have come to the conclusion that it is more likely that Covid-19 originated from a species jump in the Wuhan market.
Should the current WHO conclusion be accepted as the best explanation or not? Does anyone else have a better-informed suggestion?"I have already answered this Easy. More than once! And my answer needs to be seen in the context of my post immediately above your last one that I am quoting now! | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though?" You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine? | |||
"When you get a one word response of "SO" when you explain and show the other debaters stance is just repeated propaganda, would you call that a win for the other debater. There is nothing to debate. I have stated: 1. The evidence is still not conclusive. 2. The data was collected, catalogued and analysed by China who then prevented access for over a year before restricting access during the investigation. Both of those statements are correct and true. Then, you do not agree with the WHO conclusion. Simple enough to write. No idea why you cannot manage it. Because it isn’t a binary answer. It is more complex than that and is heavily caveated. You have already agreed with me that the investigation is not conclusive and that the WHO did not have timely unfettered access which clearly compromises any investigation. And as I already said further up... “Of course the WHO investigators know more than anyone else except the Chinese authorities (and their own investigators). I have never said otherwise. It’s obvious right? But no I cannot say their assessment is “most likely to be correct” because the investigation was clearly compromised for all the reasons already covered. It can only be correct based on the data they have been allowed to see and that is all secondary data/research not primary.” So it isn’t a yes/no response. Your understanding of information that they have seen and you have not is better than theirs then. Your assessment of how reliable the information that they have seen is better than theirs. The WHO team are less able to understand if the data provided to them is reliable than you or someone else's who hasn't seen the information is? It's a point of view. As already said ad infinitum this “evidence” would be inadmissible in court and so, therefore, would conclusions or supposition based on that evidence. Just for clarity, I have referred to this as "information" and "data" and not "evidence". I have not implied certainty. Only that the conclusions of the WHO will be better informed than anyone else's. Have you seen any of the information to know if it is admissible or not? Would you understand it if you did? “Fab expert” well if the cap fits Easy
Are you trolling? I have already said the WHO investigation will know more than anyone except the Chinese authorities. Look back up the thread. Pretty sure I have said it more than once.
That doesn’t change the two points I have been making all the way through (as repeated above to Sophie) and that you agreed with.
As for semantics, the “information” and “data” (if you prefer) would still be inadmissible were this a trial. I gave an explanation for why waaaay up the thread.
I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm not an expert. They are. I am being very clear about that. Not sure how that is confusing.
I think that the WHO scientists understand the information better than I do and are better able to assess how reliable the data that they are looking at is. Therefore, of they come to the conclusion that one outcome is more likely than another then they are more likely to be correct in that assessment than anyone else.
There is no court, there is no trial. Either expert knowledge and understanding on a very technical topic carries more weight than unqualified opinion or it doesn't. Which is it?
I will ignore your point on a “trial” as you know full well it illustrates the point on provenance and reliability of data/info/evidence. I have also not claimed any expertise.
You are just asking the same question with different words again (how many times now?) I’m not going to keep repeating myself and stand by all I have said. I have not questioned WHO expertise as that would just be silly and have already acknowledged more than once they have access to data etc you and I do not (obviously)!
BUT that STILL doesn’t mean the two statements I have made again and again are anything except true and correct. You have already agreed with them, ie...
1. Not conclusive (most/more/highly/strengthen but note not definite/certain).
2. Data/samples collected, catalogued, analysed, reported by CCDCP over 12 months before allowing restricted/controlled access by WHO.
Ergo...you still cannot rule out the lab leak theory even if it looks far less likely.
I’m really not sure what you are trying to achieve?
Please do not continue to avoid the very simple and direct questions. I am not debating if the information is contestable. I am not arguing with the two points that you keep restating for no reason whatsoever.
I am stating something very unambiguously.
The WHO have come to the conclusion that it is more likely that Covid-19 originated from a species jump in the Wuhan market.
Should the current WHO conclusion be accepted as the best explanation or not? Does anyone else have a better-informed suggestion?
I have already answered this Easy. More than once! And my answer needs to be seen in the context of my post immediately above your last one that I am quoting now!"Have you? Really? Quote it then. The direct answer that you have given because I am really struggling to see any acknowledgement that the best available conclusion comes from the WHO. | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though? You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine?" Is their conclusion of higher quality than ours = yes of course. Already said that waaaay up the thread but note that the conclusion being most/highly likely but not conclusive or definite ergo you still cannot dismiss a lab leak! When the WHO definitively say that then it is a different conversation to this one.
By their own admission the WHO team’s report is a compromise and the conditions the investigation was undertaken in was restrictive. What do you take from that? | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though? You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine? Is their conclusion of higher quality than ours = yes of course. Already said that waaaay up the thread but note that the conclusion being most/highly likely but not conclusive or definite ergo you still cannot dismiss a lab leak! When the WHO definitively say that then it is a different conversation to this one.
By their own admission the WHO team’s report is a compromise and the conditions the investigation was undertaken in was restrictive. What do you take from that?"The only point that you have made is that the WHO findings are not conclusive. Nobody said that it was. The most likely conclusion (from the WHO investigation) is that it was not a lab leak. Not what the OP claimed. The WHO has conducted the highest quality work possible in this topic. I added some data that underlined this view. (Unbelievably, perhaps, it is possible that Chinese scientists are able to carry out good work.) You have indicated that none of the results are conclusive, which nobody questioned. Is that about it? | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though? You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine? Is their conclusion of higher quality than ours = yes of course. Already said that waaaay up the thread but note that the conclusion being most/highly likely but not conclusive or definite ergo you still cannot dismiss a lab leak! When the WHO definitively say that then it is a different conversation to this one.
By their own admission the WHO team’s report is a compromise and the conditions the investigation was undertaken in was restrictive. What do you take from that?
The only point that you have made is that the WHO findings are not conclusive.
Nobody said that it was.
The most likely conclusion (from the WHO investigation) is that it was not a lab leak. Not what the OP claimed.
The WHO has conducted the highest quality work possible in this topic.
I added some data that underlined this view. (Unbelievably, perhaps, it is possible that Chinese scientists are able to carry out good work.)
You have indicated that none of the results are conclusive, which nobody questioned.
Is that about it?"Easy I know you are trying to save face but come on! 4 days ago this all started with this... “"Back on topic; from the New Scientist A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10" Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”” You took issue with that and so the exchange commenced. 2 days ago Buddy Lane joked about popping to the shop. And look at the responses from both of us! Still you took issue! Even today I said I didn’t know where you were going with all this! So I am glad you agree with me after all, shame it took so long to get there (and I still don’t get why you felt the need to continue arguing a point you conceded/agreed days ago - just odd) | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though? You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine? Is their conclusion of higher quality than ours = yes of course. Already said that waaaay up the thread but note that the conclusion being most/highly likely but not conclusive or definite ergo you still cannot dismiss a lab leak! When the WHO definitively say that then it is a different conversation to this one.
By their own admission the WHO team’s report is a compromise and the conditions the investigation was undertaken in was restrictive. What do you take from that?
The only point that you have made is that the WHO findings are not conclusive.
Nobody said that it was.
The most likely conclusion (from the WHO investigation) is that it was not a lab leak. Not what the OP claimed.
The WHO has conducted the highest quality work possible in this topic.
I added some data that underlined this view. (Unbelievably, perhaps, it is possible that Chinese scientists are able to carry out good work.)
You have indicated that none of the results are conclusive, which nobody questioned.
Is that about it?
Easy I know you are trying to save face but come on!
4 days ago this all started with this...
“"Back on topic; from the New Scientist
A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market
Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market
HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10"
Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention””
You took issue with that and so the exchange commenced.
2 days ago Buddy Lane joked about popping to the shop. And look at the responses from both of us!
Still you took issue!
Even today I said I didn’t know where you were going with all this!
So I am glad you agree with me after all, shame it took so long to get there (and I still don’t get why you felt the need to continue arguing a point you conceded/agreed days ago - just odd) "I'm trying to save face? I'm not expending as many words to do so as you are then
You still have no idea if 33 positive tests is a significant number or not, do you?
The only thing that you have added, uncontested, is that nothing is conclusive.
The one thing that I have said consistently, on this thread and others, is that the knowledge and understanding of the experts on the topic of Covid-19 carries significantly more weight than those of random individuals on YouTube or on this forum.
If you need to win then I'm happy to let you do so. What you feel you have won, I have no idea but well done you  | |||
 | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though? You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine? Is their conclusion of higher quality than ours = yes of course. Already said that waaaay up the thread but note that the conclusion being most/highly likely but not conclusive or definite ergo you still cannot dismiss a lab leak! When the WHO definitively say that then it is a different conversation to this one.
By their own admission the WHO team’s report is a compromise and the conditions the investigation was undertaken in was restrictive. What do you take from that?
The only point that you have made is that the WHO findings are not conclusive.
Nobody said that it was.
The most likely conclusion (from the WHO investigation) is that it was not a lab leak. Not what the OP claimed.
The WHO has conducted the highest quality work possible in this topic.
I added some data that underlined this view. (Unbelievably, perhaps, it is possible that Chinese scientists are able to carry out good work.)
You have indicated that none of the results are conclusive, which nobody questioned.
Is that about it?
Easy I know you are trying to save face but come on!
4 days ago this all started with this...
“"Back on topic; from the New Scientist
A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market
Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market
HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10"
Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention””
You took issue with that and so the exchange commenced.
2 days ago Buddy Lane joked about popping to the shop. And look at the responses from both of us!
Still you took issue!
Even today I said I didn’t know where you were going with all this!
So I am glad you agree with me after all, shame it took so long to get there (and I still don’t get why you felt the need to continue arguing a point you conceded/agreed days ago - just odd)
I'm trying to save face? I'm not expending as many words to do so as you are then
You still have no idea if 33 positive tests is a significant number or not, do you?
The only thing that you have added, uncontested, is that nothing is conclusive.
The one thing that I have said consistently, on this thread and others, is that the knowledge and understanding of the experts on the topic of Covid-19 carries significantly more weight than those of random individuals on YouTube or on this forum.
If you need to win then I'm happy to let you do so. What you feel you have won, I have no idea but well done you "Nice try but even a cursory read of the thread shows it was you trying to prove some kind of point and me sticking to a consistent point. You are even trying to do it again now with the “33”. Here is a quote of my reply on the very same challenge from 3 days ago... “Oh and BTW I did not question the figure, I quoted the article! [paraphrase for context] Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, [followed by actual quote] “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention” The important point being that the Chinese authorities took the samples, undertook the analysis and wrote the report over 12 months before anyone else had any access. Not the number of samples!”” I think it is you who seems obsessed with winning. I simply stuck to my original point the whole way through! I am amazed anyone else is reading this thread. You just create word salad to force reaponses! I have even managed to bore myself. | |||
"The military world games were held in wuhan Oct 2019 And there are reported cases of athletes becoming ill during the event with covid symptoms. the wet market theory is inconclusive, there was also the mysterious infection that spread through a retirement home in springfield virginia in July 2019 2 people died and numerous hospitalised, the cause of the infection or what it was is still unknown or has been investigated. The WHO need to investigate the world games and the retirement home infection. also just playing devil's advocate, the first countries to record covid infections all have usa military bases. "If these were indeed covid 19 infection they would have spread quickly around the world and we would have seen widespread illness and death. As we have seen without isolation measures covid spreads rapidly. | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though? You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine? Is their conclusion of higher quality than ours = yes of course. Already said that waaaay up the thread but note that the conclusion being most/highly likely but not conclusive or definite ergo you still cannot dismiss a lab leak! When the WHO definitively say that then it is a different conversation to this one.
By their own admission the WHO team’s report is a compromise and the conditions the investigation was undertaken in was restrictive. What do you take from that?
The only point that you have made is that the WHO findings are not conclusive.
Nobody said that it was.
The most likely conclusion (from the WHO investigation) is that it was not a lab leak. Not what the OP claimed.
The WHO has conducted the highest quality work possible in this topic.
I added some data that underlined this view. (Unbelievably, perhaps, it is possible that Chinese scientists are able to carry out good work.)
You have indicated that none of the results are conclusive, which nobody questioned.
Is that about it?
Easy I know you are trying to save face but come on!
4 days ago this all started with this...
“"Back on topic; from the New Scientist
A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market
Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market
HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10"
Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention””
You took issue with that and so the exchange commenced.
2 days ago Buddy Lane joked about popping to the shop. And look at the responses from both of us!
Still you took issue!
Even today I said I didn’t know where you were going with all this!
So I am glad you agree with me after all, shame it took so long to get there (and I still don’t get why you felt the need to continue arguing a point you conceded/agreed days ago - just odd)
I'm trying to save face? I'm not expending as many words to do so as you are then
You still have no idea if 33 positive tests is a significant number or not, do you?
The only thing that you have added, uncontested, is that nothing is conclusive.
The one thing that I have said consistently, on this thread and others, is that the knowledge and understanding of the experts on the topic of Covid-19 carries significantly more weight than those of random individuals on YouTube or on this forum.
If you need to win then I'm happy to let you do so. What you feel you have won, I have no idea but well done you
Nice try but even a cursory read of the thread shows it was you trying to prove some kind of point and me sticking to a consistent point. You are even trying to do it again now with the “33”. Here is a quote of my reply on the very same challenge from 3 days ago...
“Oh and BTW I did not question the figure, I quoted the article!
[paraphrase for context] Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, [followed by actual quote] “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”
The important point being that the Chinese authorities took the samples, undertook the analysis and wrote the report over 12 months before anyone else had any access. Not the number of samples!””
I think it is you who seems obsessed with winning. I simply stuck to my original point the whole way through!
I am amazed anyone else is reading this thread. You just create word salad to force reaponses! I have even managed to bore myself."If you weren't so keen to be seen to "win", then why all the effort? What point are you proving and to whom? Pay attention to genuine experts. | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though? You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine? Is their conclusion of higher quality than ours = yes of course. Already said that waaaay up the thread but note that the conclusion being most/highly likely but not conclusive or definite ergo you still cannot dismiss a lab leak! When the WHO definitively say that then it is a different conversation to this one.
By their own admission the WHO team’s report is a compromise and the conditions the investigation was undertaken in was restrictive. What do you take from that?
The only point that you have made is that the WHO findings are not conclusive.
Nobody said that it was.
The most likely conclusion (from the WHO investigation) is that it was not a lab leak. Not what the OP claimed.
The WHO has conducted the highest quality work possible in this topic.
I added some data that underlined this view. (Unbelievably, perhaps, it is possible that Chinese scientists are able to carry out good work.)
You have indicated that none of the results are conclusive, which nobody questioned.
Is that about it?
Easy I know you are trying to save face but come on!
4 days ago this all started with this...
“"Back on topic; from the New Scientist
A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market
Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market
HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10"
Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention””
You took issue with that and so the exchange commenced.
2 days ago Buddy Lane joked about popping to the shop. And look at the responses from both of us!
Still you took issue!
Even today I said I didn’t know where you were going with all this!
So I am glad you agree with me after all, shame it took so long to get there (and I still don’t get why you felt the need to continue arguing a point you conceded/agreed days ago - just odd)
I'm trying to save face? I'm not expending as many words to do so as you are then
You still have no idea if 33 positive tests is a significant number or not, do you?
The only thing that you have added, uncontested, is that nothing is conclusive.
The one thing that I have said consistently, on this thread and others, is that the knowledge and understanding of the experts on the topic of Covid-19 carries significantly more weight than those of random individuals on YouTube or on this forum.
If you need to win then I'm happy to let you do so. What you feel you have won, I have no idea but well done you
Nice try but even a cursory read of the thread shows it was you trying to prove some kind of point and me sticking to a consistent point. You are even trying to do it again now with the “33”. Here is a quote of my reply on the very same challenge from 3 days ago...
“Oh and BTW I did not question the figure, I quoted the article!
[paraphrase for context] Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, [followed by actual quote] “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”
The important point being that the Chinese authorities took the samples, undertook the analysis and wrote the report over 12 months before anyone else had any access. Not the number of samples!””
I think it is you who seems obsessed with winning. I simply stuck to my original point the whole way through!
I am amazed anyone else is reading this thread. You just create word salad to force reaponses! I have even managed to bore myself.
If you weren't so keen to be seen to "win", then why all the effort? What point are you proving and to whom?
Pay attention to genuine experts."That was a poor retort! You try so hard to gaslight but it falls flat in the end. Are you running out of steam? Shame | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though? You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine? Is their conclusion of higher quality than ours = yes of course. Already said that waaaay up the thread but note that the conclusion being most/highly likely but not conclusive or definite ergo you still cannot dismiss a lab leak! When the WHO definitively say that then it is a different conversation to this one.
By their own admission the WHO team’s report is a compromise and the conditions the investigation was undertaken in was restrictive. What do you take from that?
The only point that you have made is that the WHO findings are not conclusive.
Nobody said that it was.
The most likely conclusion (from the WHO investigation) is that it was not a lab leak. Not what the OP claimed.
The WHO has conducted the highest quality work possible in this topic.
I added some data that underlined this view. (Unbelievably, perhaps, it is possible that Chinese scientists are able to carry out good work.)
You have indicated that none of the results are conclusive, which nobody questioned.
Is that about it?
Easy I know you are trying to save face but come on!
4 days ago this all started with this...
“"Back on topic; from the New Scientist
A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market
Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market
HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10"
Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention””
You took issue with that and so the exchange commenced.
2 days ago Buddy Lane joked about popping to the shop. And look at the responses from both of us!
Still you took issue!
Even today I said I didn’t know where you were going with all this!
So I am glad you agree with me after all, shame it took so long to get there (and I still don’t get why you felt the need to continue arguing a point you conceded/agreed days ago - just odd)
I'm trying to save face? I'm not expending as many words to do so as you are then
You still have no idea if 33 positive tests is a significant number or not, do you?
The only thing that you have added, uncontested, is that nothing is conclusive.
The one thing that I have said consistently, on this thread and others, is that the knowledge and understanding of the experts on the topic of Covid-19 carries significantly more weight than those of random individuals on YouTube or on this forum.
If you need to win then I'm happy to let you do so. What you feel you have won, I have no idea but well done you
Nice try but even a cursory read of the thread shows it was you trying to prove some kind of point and me sticking to a consistent point. You are even trying to do it again now with the “33”. Here is a quote of my reply on the very same challenge from 3 days ago...
“Oh and BTW I did not question the figure, I quoted the article!
[paraphrase for context] Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, [followed by actual quote] “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”
The important point being that the Chinese authorities took the samples, undertook the analysis and wrote the report over 12 months before anyone else had any access. Not the number of samples!””
I think it is you who seems obsessed with winning. I simply stuck to my original point the whole way through!
I am amazed anyone else is reading this thread. You just create word salad to force reaponses! I have even managed to bore myself.
If you weren't so keen to be seen to "win", then why all the effort? What point are you proving and to whom?
Pay attention to genuine experts.
That was a poor retort! You try so hard to gaslight but it falls flat in the end. Are you running out of steam? Shame "Thanks again for the attempt at patronisation. Yet here you are, still not trying to "win"
All yours from here on. Enjoy | |||
"Let’s just look at what the WHO investigators themselves had to say... “the WHO international team point out that the report's conclusions reflect what the international team and its Chinese counterparts could agree on. "This entire report is a compromise," says Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany and part of the international team. "And in a compromise, you have to respect the other's views." And international response to the WHO report... "Together we support a transparent and independent analysis, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," the statement said. “The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," the statement said. The statement was jointly released by Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. So what does that tell you? Might also be worth revisiting the New Scientist article and look at the careful use of wording including the interesting use of the word “remarkable”. Probably nothing though? You, and I, have seen no data. Zero. The WHO team have come to a conclusion based on the information that they have seen, the people that that have spoken to and the places that they have visited. Is their conclusion of a higher quality than yours or mine? Is their conclusion of higher quality than ours = yes of course. Already said that waaaay up the thread but note that the conclusion being most/highly likely but not conclusive or definite ergo you still cannot dismiss a lab leak! When the WHO definitively say that then it is a different conversation to this one.
By their own admission the WHO team’s report is a compromise and the conditions the investigation was undertaken in was restrictive. What do you take from that?
The only point that you have made is that the WHO findings are not conclusive.
Nobody said that it was.
The most likely conclusion (from the WHO investigation) is that it was not a lab leak. Not what the OP claimed.
The WHO has conducted the highest quality work possible in this topic.
I added some data that underlined this view. (Unbelievably, perhaps, it is possible that Chinese scientists are able to carry out good work.)
You have indicated that none of the results are conclusive, which nobody questioned.
Is that about it?
Easy I know you are trying to save face but come on!
4 days ago this all started with this...
“"Back on topic; from the New Scientist
A detailed look at the coronavirus's first days at a Wuhan market
Three recent studies give a detailed picture of how the coronavirus pandemic began and strengthen the case that the virus came from animals at the Huanan seafood market
HEALTH February 28, 2022 15:10"
Interesting. The challenge here is that it is not conclusive and the Chinese authorities still control the evidence and narrative. Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention””
You took issue with that and so the exchange commenced.
2 days ago Buddy Lane joked about popping to the shop. And look at the responses from both of us!
Still you took issue!
Even today I said I didn’t know where you were going with all this!
So I am glad you agree with me after all, shame it took so long to get there (and I still don’t get why you felt the need to continue arguing a point you conceded/agreed days ago - just odd)
I'm trying to save face? I'm not expending as many words to do so as you are then
You still have no idea if 33 positive tests is a significant number or not, do you?
The only thing that you have added, uncontested, is that nothing is conclusive.
The one thing that I have said consistently, on this thread and others, is that the knowledge and understanding of the experts on the topic of Covid-19 carries significantly more weight than those of random individuals on YouTube or on this forum.
If you need to win then I'm happy to let you do so. What you feel you have won, I have no idea but well done you
Nice try but even a cursory read of the thread shows it was you trying to prove some kind of point and me sticking to a consistent point. You are even trying to do it again now with the “33”. Here is a quote of my reply on the very same challenge from 3 days ago...
“Oh and BTW I did not question the figure, I quoted the article!
[paraphrase for context] Of the 600 swab samples taken in the market, [followed by actual quote] “33 tested positive for the virus according to a report by the Chinese Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention”
The important point being that the Chinese authorities took the samples, undertook the analysis and wrote the report over 12 months before anyone else had any access. Not the number of samples!””
I think it is you who seems obsessed with winning. I simply stuck to my original point the whole way through!
I am amazed anyone else is reading this thread. You just create word salad to force reaponses! I have even managed to bore myself.
If you weren't so keen to be seen to "win", then why all the effort? What point are you proving and to whom?
Pay attention to genuine experts.
That was a poor retort! You try so hard to gaslight but it falls flat in the end. Are you running out of steam? Shame
Thanks again for the attempt at patronisation.
Yet here you are, still not trying to "win"
All yours from here on. Enjoy "You feel patronised oh dear that was not my intent all just a bit of harmless banter you should lighten up Easy | |||
| |||
"Dangerous virus originates in city that has massive virus research lab that specifically researches Covid style viruses. You don't need months of investigations or mass media in order to deduce a rough idea of what happened." You don't need anything if you jump to conclusions. People used to have a rough idea that the Sun orbited the Earth. Then they investigated a bit further and found out that it wasn't the case... | |||
