CIA says lab leak most likely source of Covid outbreak (Ed)

Trumpf’s changed it from could have been natural causes or a lab leak, to “more plausible” that it was a lab leak. CIA push back and they settle on “low confidence”. Maybe he should have put tariffs on Covid.
 
Sponsored Links
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
 
Sponsored Links
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
Can you show then on this thread who has denied covid was real. ?
 
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
Nwgs1 called it a "scamdemic"

Ellal constantly used the phrase 'virus' implying it wasnt real
 
Can you show then on this thread who has denied covid was real. ?
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.

I don't have a problem with those who think the UK's response was wrong or over the top, but they should say it as it is and not pussy foot around, It helps to stop them killing off the elderly and highly vulnerable.
 
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.
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.
 
...Trump and his MAGA morons?

(n)

Nothing to do with them.

The chances of this virus occurring accidentally, next to the largest virus testing laboratory in the world, without there being a link is preposterous.

Millions to one against this happening.
 
Last edited:
They are saying there is some evidence that it was a Lab leak, but their confidence in that is low, based on limited information.
Fair enough, and that is unambiguous.
But they don't say that.
because there is no if its not A, it must be B scenario.
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...
The statement could be written far less ambiguously.
 
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...
Put that way I agree.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top