Covid was created to beat Trump for the Democrats.
It was the ultimate victimhood ploy of chucking a sickie

Please explain what you think evidence means bobbi, because right now the claims you've made is a lie, unless you have some sort of personal definition of what you think "evidence" means.

Until you can show you understand what "evidence" means you really shouldn't be using that word.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2025 at 10:49pm:


Without corroborating evidence, that's meaningless, especially given the source of the claims.

Quote:


The conclusion you've reached from that isn't supported by the sequencing alone.  It's misleading and demonstrates a misunderstanding of how viral genetics work. Genetic similarity does not imply artificial splicing.  You'd need to post evidence of that before being able to make that claim, which you haven't.

Quote:


It's not a good look for them and it does seem like they have something they're trying to hide, but that doesn't reveal what it is.

It could be a thousand other things.  At best you've posted things that, assuming the information is legitimate which is a big assumption, make it plausible that "could" have come from a lab, but you've yet to show any evidence that proves that over all the other possibilities.

And that's not limited to you or this thread, that's the current consensus.  There is no proof of either natural or lab leak.  We just don't know.

Quote:


None of this is new, we've been through this before, multiple times.

You're tilting at windmills, drowning in a sea of your own verbosity without ever landing on anything conclusive. You claim to have proven a lab leak or a bioweapons program, yet your argument relies on selectively ignoring inconvenient evidence, brushing aside equally, if not more, plausible explanations, and treating circumstantial tidbits as though they are irrefutable fact.

It's not good enough.

I don’t need a rehash of the pages upon pages of tenuous speculation, you’ve flooded this discussion with it already. And let's not forget the sheer volume of spam that had to be cleared just to keep things readable. Your approach is the very definition of quantity over quality, throwing mountains of half-baked assertions at the wall and hoping something sticks.

If you're here to confirm what you already believe rather than seek the truth, then don’t mistake that for proving anything at all.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2025 at 10:09am:


So when your claims about COVID-19 being a bioweapon or a lab leak don’t hold up, you suddenly pivot to radical scepticism, pretending that nothing can be known for certain and to ignore things like the scientific method and take a philosophical approach?

At least you've acknowledged that you've not yet proved anything.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2025 at 10:26am:


No, I'm just asking you since you're making definitive claims, to post the evidence that you've used to justify those claims.

So far you have been unable to do so.

Quote:


And what you've accumulated proves nothing other than the claims you're making are plausible.

As is "god did it".

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2025 at 10:37am:


It is without a doubt the least credible form of evidence.  Eyewitness testimony is not inherently reliable and should never be the sole basis for a conviction without corroborating evidence.

Since the claims you're making are so extraordinary, they require extraordinary evidence, not the least reliable and error prone only.

ahahahahahahahah!