A Candid Conversation with Richard Ebright on Science Writers & Researchers Who Created a Conspiracy Arguing Against the COVID19 Pandemic Starting from a Lab Leak
A Candid Conversation with Richard Ebright on Science Writers & Researchers Who Created a Conspiracy Arguing Against the COVID19 Pandemic Starting from a Lab Leak
What's even better is nothing was released. There isn't animal-to-human transfer. So this was just the flu made out to be something. And all fake testing bs numbers. all to vaccinate and kill more people. I have been around people with, and without ever getting sick. All garbage. When I did feel under the weather I downed vitamin C and E and got better. Never to the hospital that is where you will die.
"This makes the case even more solid that virologists were misleading people by loudly exclaiming that the evidence showed the pandemic started by a natural spillover and a lab leak theory was a “conspiracy.” This was always propaganda to protect their funding and colleagues from scrutiny that this may have been a screw up by scientists. They never had any tangible evidence on their side. "
Your comment doesn't even make sense. I said nothing about having evidence of a natural spillover. Yours is the ad hominem comment, as is the one I responded to.
To clarify: There's no *dispositive* (not "tangible"--there's plenty of that) evidence for either *hypothesis* (not "side"), and people like Alina Chan have gone into detail about why that is. I personally lean toward a lab leak, but that's neither here nor there.
Mr. Forrester demands evidence from me for a proposition that I never asserted, while never requiring any evidence for the ad hominem claims about motivation that I quoted. He accuses me of ad hominem, but all I did was characterize a *claim*. Mr. Forrester has been fighting long enough in these trenches (many decades, by my recollection) that he should know by now what an ad hominem is (as well as the nature of evidence, hypotheses vs. "sides", etc. ... but, to get a *little* personal, there's no indication that he ever will.)
The Global Elite
Intend To Reduce
The World's Population
By 90 Percent
To Below 500 Million
By Engineering Pathogens
In the Laboratory
And Unleashing Them
Upon The World
To Depopulate The Planet
And after each artificial
deadly pandemic,
The World will be offered
And even coerced To receive
What will be hailed as the cure
BUT WILL JUST BE MORE HARM
DISGUISED as a LIFE-SAVING VACCINE.
What's even better is nothing was released. There isn't animal-to-human transfer. So this was just the flu made out to be something. And all fake testing bs numbers. all to vaccinate and kill more people. I have been around people with, and without ever getting sick. All garbage. When I did feel under the weather I downed vitamin C and E and got better. Never to the hospital that is where you will die.
Keep telling yourself that until you get it. #HermanCainAward
Fantastic, sickening interview. Thank you
"This makes the case even more solid that virologists were misleading people by loudly exclaiming that the evidence showed the pandemic started by a natural spillover and a lab leak theory was a “conspiracy.” This was always propaganda to protect their funding and colleagues from scrutiny that this may have been a screw up by scientists. They never had any tangible evidence on their side. "
Pure crackpottery.
What evidence do you have for natural spillover? None. Your comment is just pure ad hominem.
Your comment doesn't even make sense. I said nothing about having evidence of a natural spillover. Yours is the ad hominem comment, as is the one I responded to.
To clarify: There's no *dispositive* (not "tangible"--there's plenty of that) evidence for either *hypothesis* (not "side"), and people like Alina Chan have gone into detail about why that is. I personally lean toward a lab leak, but that's neither here nor there.
Mr. Forrester demands evidence from me for a proposition that I never asserted, while never requiring any evidence for the ad hominem claims about motivation that I quoted. He accuses me of ad hominem, but all I did was characterize a *claim*. Mr. Forrester has been fighting long enough in these trenches (many decades, by my recollection) that he should know by now what an ad hominem is (as well as the nature of evidence, hypotheses vs. "sides", etc. ... but, to get a *little* personal, there's no indication that he ever will.)
I have removed this comment about Richard Ebright. It's fine to have a freewheeling discussion, but no implied threats of violence.
Fixed. Thank you!