A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
... and one additional thing to that point that Joel brought up earlier today - if WIV really had three people who endedup in the hospital with COVID, a TON of people would have had to have gotten infected before that wouldstatistically be plausible given hospitalization rates.
-
Yes, that's my point as well.
-
Well, of course it is - only read the first part :wink:
-
Which also means that they started the cover-up long before this outbreak became serious
-
2021-05-27 15:02
Edward C. Holmes
So, big outbreak at WIV but it's all kept quiet in November. And this cover-up would be going on for even longer ifthey knew back in September and so took their database offline.
-
Yup, that's what happened.
-
So what we have is a failed CDC Director speculating in an area of virology he does not understand, A CNN scienceanchor tagging on, two failed exNYTimes authors seeking relevance or just looking for an income stream with abook, a failed Intelligence officer David Asher (who now Batman to Steve Quay's Robin_ who own deputy secretary pulled the plug on the investigation (apparently unbenown to the WSJ, but clear even to Fox), and a couple of oldNobelists also proving they are long past their prime (redeem yourself DB). Mix this with a Republican toxic stew andan few ill-considered Fauci quote. Mix in Angie's opportunists, dilettantes, racist/misogynist assholes, and trolls and shit decisions at the journal call "science" and this is where we're at.
-
At this moment probably about as good as it gets from the NYT - it could be worse. [shared file(s): Scientists Don't Want to Ignore the Wuhan 'Lab Leak' Theory, Despite No New Evidence - The New York Times.pdf]
-
Not great though. What do you make of this? Surely nobody is reading Yan's report? [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-28 at 8.54.53 am.png]