- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
2-3 years ago, this was "disinformation" and "harmful."
![]()
oops, forgot about "debunked"
2-3 years ago, this was "disinformation" and "harmful."
![]()
“Twitter said early on in May 2020 that it would at least label disputed tweets about the virus, including on its origins… Facebook made a more explicit policy change in February 2021, announcing that it would remove “debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines” including that “COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured.”
That's an article about GOP politicians claiming that social media silenced their opinions, and this new report from the DOE, which says with "low confidence" that the pandemic was based on an accidental lab leak, proves them right. It's disingenuous because the DOE report does not prove them right, and they were not banned from discussing the issue on social media.
And this is the problem, isn't it?
People who didn't get vaccinated because they clearly didn't need to be got called antivaxxers.
People who were open to the lab leak theory got called conspiratards.
People who rightfully questioned the effectiveness of masks got called anti - science.
There's a flip side to most of that as well, but the point is many people picked a side based on political loyalties and ideas were adopted or dismissed wholesale and without consideration or rationalization.
It certainly wasn’t based on much, other than “there’s a virology lab nearby, it must’ve been that!”It absolutely wasn't baseless.
It certainly wasn’t based on much, other than “there’s a virology lab nearby, it must’ve been that!”
Don’t get me wrong, if there’s a virology lab right near where a novel virus breaks out, there’s nothing wrong with examining that, lol. I’m not saying that. But there *is something wrong with deciding it was that with no supporting evidence, and there is something wrong with continuing to say that despite evidence to the contrary. It’s also a bit silly for these people to take a low confidence conclusion as gospel truth when they outright rejected a different low confidence conclusion.
We don’t know the origin of COVID at this time. It’s as simple as that.
It certainly wasn’t based on much, other than “there’s a virology lab nearby, it must’ve been that!”
Don’t get me wrong, if there’s a virology lab right near where a novel virus breaks out, there’s nothing wrong with examining that, lol. I’m not saying that. But there *is something wrong with deciding it was that with no supporting evidence, and there is something wrong with continuing to say that despite evidence to the contrary. It’s also a bit silly for these people to take a low confidence conclusion as gospel truth when they outright rejected a different low confidence conclusion.
We don’t know the origin of COVID at this time. It’s as simple as that.
Posts of made up statistics have increased by a factor of 823000.Cases of myocarditis have increased by a factor of 328.
Cases of myocarditis have increased by a factor of 328.
2-3 years ago, this was "disinformation" and "harmful."
![]()
Oh, ok then.
Thanks for providing the evidence.
Assuming you'll likely only accept some mainstream source, otherwise you'll brand it as conspiracy stuff.
But this guy seems to explain it quite well....
https://www.theburningplatform.com/...carditis-rates-after-the-vaccines-rolled-out/
Ps, how are those fuel prices doing now?
Lack of evidence isn't evidence, no matter what your pre-conceived conclusions are.LMAO a little disingenuous!?
A LITTLE!?
"On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold."
"Vaccine-maker Moderna has forked over $400 million to the National Institutes of Health for using a molecular stabilizing technique borrowed from government and academic researchers in its mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine—which the company made roughly $36 billion selling amid the deadly pandemic"
It certainly wasn’t based on much, other than “there’s a virology lab nearby, it must’ve been that!”
As of Feb 24, Stockport and Strabane had diesel at 151.7p per litre.
Given that guy is asking for people to support or contradict his thoughts, I'm going to take them as just that for now: his 'thoughts'.
Wrecked
I have been posting about the origin of Covid-19 in the other thread. I will reproduce my most recent post from that thread here, but it is better to read in the other thread because I link each post to the previous post there: https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...gathread-vol-2.4265991/page-99#post-170047137News to me. Can anyone fill me in?