Bobby. wrote on Oct 24
th, 2024 at 7:05am:
Some background for your source,
Quote:Children's Health Defense (CHD) is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit activist group mainly known for anti-vaccine disinformation, and which has been called one of the main sources of misinformation on vaccines.
Founded under the name World Mercury Project in 2007, it is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The group has been campaigning against various public health programs, such as vaccination and fluoridation of drinking water.
The group has been contributing to vaccine hesitancy in the United States, encouraging citizens and legislators to support anti-vaccine regulations and legislation.
Arguments against vaccination are contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
Its $15-million budget is funded through donations from individuals (both directly and anonymized through foundations) and affiliate marketing revenues.
More Info here Even if you push that clear bias aside, the article makes strong claims regarding Ralph Baric, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the COVID-19 pandemic, but it does not provide concrete proof to substantiate its assertions.
Instead, it relies heavily on inferences and suppositions.
The article makes several claims but lacks concrete evidence to back them up:
FOIA Rejection and Data Concealment: It alleges that Ralph Baric is hiding critical data related to the origins of COVID-19, but provides no proof that the concealed data contains such evidence.
Collaboration with Shi Zhengli: While Baric worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Shi Zhengli, the article offers no evidence that this collaboration is linked to the pandemic's origins.
Fauci’s Role: The article suggests Fauci lied about knowing Baric and implies a cover-up, but lacks proof of any improper connection between Fauci and Baric’s work.
Intellectual Property Rights: It criticises Baric’s claim of intellectual property over his data but doesn't provide legal reasoning or evidence of wrongdoing.
Judge Alyson Grine’s Decision: The article questions the judge's ruling in Baric’s favour, insinuating bias based on her background, but provides no proof of improper legal conduct.
The article relies heavily on speculation, insinuation, and rhetorical devices rather than presenting hard evidence to substantiate its claims about Baric or what is being hidden from the public.
There is not enough evidence to reach the conclusion that you have Bobbi, that it's been a great cover-up.
But when has that ever stopped you?