It's just the flu seemingly...I thought COVID wasn't real ?
Yep by the WHO -- you know - the WHO that get most of their funding from ChinaRemember that got called out for being racist
Can you show then on this thread who has denied covid was real. ?There is a conflict of interest on this thread for the covid deniers. They want to welcome the CIA findings as spun by MAG A, but at the same time deny that there ever was covid. It's still Covid even if you call it flu
Nwgs1 called it a "scamdemic"Not seen anyone saying it wasn't real . Seen a lot saying they didn't feel the need to be vaccinated . Perhaps as per usual you were seeing words that were not written
That is your take on it they didn't say it never actually existed stop lyingNwgs1 called it a "scamdemic"
Ellal constantly used the phrase 'virus' implying it wasnt real
Of course they didn't, unless Trump is wrong. You are lying again.the WHO that get most of their funding from China
Playing down the impact of covid, calling it flu, accusing the drug companies of profiteering etc etc, are wide spread techniques used to deny covid, just less unsubtle.Can you show then on this thread who has denied covid was real. ?
No. They are saying there is some evidence that it was a Lab leak, but their confidence in that is low, based on limited information. It does not mean the reverse is more likely, because there is no if its not A, it must be B scenario.Without arguing whether or not a lab leak is to blame, the statement doesn't make logical sense...
If the hypothesis is that COVID-19 is more likely to be from research-related origin, rather than a natural one - and they have low confidence in that hypothesis; then naturally, there would be higher confidence in the null-hypothesis, wouldn't there?
The statement could be written far less ambiguously.
It was a virus. What's your point?Nwgs1 called it a "scamdemic"
Ellal constantly used the phrase 'virus' implying it wasnt real
...Trump and his MAGA morons?
![]()
Fair enough, and that is unambiguous.They are saying there is some evidence that it was a Lab leak, but their confidence in that is low, based on limited information.
The statement itself raises the dichotomy - "a research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin"because there is no if its not A, it must be B scenario.
The statement could be written far less ambiguously.
Put that way I agree.Fair enough, and that is unambiguous.
But they don't say that.
The statement itself raises the dichotomy - "a research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin"
If they have low confidence in the origin being research-related, that must necessarily mean that they have even less confidence in the origin being natural - according to the way the statement has been written.
As I said before...
It was a virus. What's your point?