We can't trust the WHO
misterorange
Biden SUCKS, Kamala BLOWS
This is what I just can't get past: Regardless of "how" this whole thing started (bats, wet markets, poor laboratory procedures, whatever) in the very beginning there had to be SOME NUMBER of sick people BEFORE the WHO got involved, right? How many? I don't know - how many people have to get sick before the WHO takes notice? A thousand? A hundred? For argument's sake, let's say it's as little as a few dozen, okay? So even at the very first moment the WHO got involved, how could they POSSIBLY have said, "There's no evidence of human-to-human transmission?" If 2 or 3 dozen people suddenly fall ill with symptoms nearly identical to the flu (only more severe) and that number is literally growing by the hour, doubling or tripling daily, is there any other logical assumption besides human-to-human transmission? To say otherwise they HAD to be either STUPID or LYING, and I really don't think all those disease experts at the WHO are stupid. Corrupt and unethical - yes. Stupid - no.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
22 comments
timeline above. The world was on notice well before it came to the US. Warnings of it being contagious via droplets in January
Or the WHAT. Or the WHERE. The WHEN is a little shady, and especially the WHY. But I don't worry about that, because I can just find my truth on the Internet if I search enough. It's great because the Net works that way for everybody.
If you're sick, stay home. If you don't want to get sick, stay home.
You say, "... because I can just find my truth on the Internet if I search enough."
Therein lies the problem. Your statement, in my opinion, is 100% correct. BUT, few, very few, do their due diligence to find the truth. I am sort of discounting your "my truth" since find what one wishes to fine is usually quite simple. Finding THE truth is the difficult part.
Once one finds reliable online sources, the truth is quite a bit easier to find.