>>8472141 (pb)
I see a "17" in that Hebrew lettering. Yes I know they read right-to-left; still, the 17s are in there.
When will we read that Ghiz got the Wu-Flu? Can't wait.
Pirbright has most likely been controlling the NIH & CDC for decades.
What weeds had he smoked before he had this dream?
That's clearly Chinese propaganda. Note the Taiwanese physician being quoted. No doubt he's on the CCP's payroll. For those thinking I'm just reflexively rejecting this idea, two points:
-
This came out a few days ago; I've had time to read varying accounts of it and think it through.
-
The leap of logic in his epidemiological reasoning is politics, not science. Because there are more strains in country A than in country B, therefore the virus originated in the country with the most different strains. Major logical fallacy, which ignores openness of countries to travelers from foreign nations.
At least a week ago, another anon proposed a conjecture that the virus was intended to be a marker for tracking interactions. This is the only thing I've read which fits all the facts.
First, several credible virologists and epidemiologists have come forward on the record saying that no coronavirus has been properly isolated, then confirmed, then tested on animals to see if it actually causes illness, etc. You know, actual science hasn't been done.
Second, at least three credible sources have come forward on the record and said that all deaths which have been properly investigated could not be definitively attributed to a virus as cause of death; there were always other comorbid conditions which could not be eliminated as the cause of death.
Third, the tests themselves have not been properly tested and evaluated as to their accuracy, rates of false negatives and false positives, and repeatability. This last criterion for a credible test is failed by the one they're using most widely, because it doesn't have a clearly defined, universally-used delineation point for how many cycles to run and then what level rates a positive versus negative.
For all these reasons, some virologists, epidemiologists and physicians are questioning whether there is really a novel coronavirus or not. Add to that the rumors and theories about weaponized substances and military goals, and it's reasonable to conclude that the anon who proposed the marker/tracking substance hypothesis may have been over the target.
You don't get flying colors from being drunk, anon. You get flying colors on acid.
That's brilliant, anon. I hope it's also true.
>>What made you do a Hebrew to English search of Kobe and covid?
>>How did you you think to do that?
Credit to the anon whose post I referenced in the previous bread. I was just adding a thought to his observations.