Anonymous ID: e549b6 May 27, 2021, 6:23 a.m. No.13765137   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Why is the media hammering on about the 2 mask men in the Mollie Tibbets case? If it was non-sense (which def could be) why are they covering it so?

Anonymous ID: e549b6 May 27, 2021, 7:40 a.m. No.13765623   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>13765610

 

From link:

 

What are some of the potential major implications of this hypothesis?

 

If initial and potentially repeated animal-person transmission, followed by subsequent person-to-person transmission, could have begun in October-November or earlier in 2019, then patients with pneumonia due to infection with the novel coronavirus (“2019-nCoV”) could have started to spread across Wuhan, and by infected-travelers leaving Wuhan to other locations.

 

How does this hypothesis help to explain the apparent rapid spread of the 2019-nCov across Wuhan and beyond, after its apparent initial emergence from the Huanan seafood market in December 2019?

 

The hypothesis is that the initial emergence of the virus was not the Huanan seafood market. Spread of the virus was already occurring person-to-person in October-November (or earlier) and gradually increasing into December. Thus, some of the 14 of the 41 patients who had no exposure to the Huanan seafood market (see page 3 Figure 1B) would be explained.

 

Thus, the presumed rapid spread of the virus apparently for the first time from the Huanan seafood market in December did not occur. Instead the virus was already silently spreading in Wuhan hidden amidst many other patients with pneumonia at this time of year.

 

Thus, some of the 14 cases with no exposure to the Huanan market out of the total 41 cases (see article page 3, figure 1B) could be explained by the pre-existing chains of transmission causing ongoing person-to-person transmission and/or transmission from infected animals (1 or more species) in other markets inside and/or outside Wuhan, or anywhere along the supply chain of infected animals.