Or perhaps almost no one disputes that "the" virus "began" in Wuhan because it is very convenient that it did so with the lab there. How is "began" determined? This smacks as one of those foundational "facts" that almost no one questions, yet is unprovable and likely false. Why would the lab leak story suddenly be permitted, in a synchronous global way, by the media and politicians? Just part of the plan IMHO. The world has been led by the nose into a False dichotomy of lab vs wet market (but definitely "began" in Wuhan!). The great thing about this false dichotomy for the globalists is it keeps the pandemic preparedness grift alive and well - especially if it came from a lab. That all said I of course join you in your criticisms of the jab.
I would say that began was determined by pneumonias, but you are correct that a negative cannot be proven in the absolute sense:
It cannot be absolutely proven that the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with its unique double-arginine codons associated with its furin cleavage site, did not exist in prior years, but then it came into existence, and then it caused pneumonia.
The reason that you cannot prove that negative, is because we were not looking for it -- and finding something "new" does not automatically mean that it is new.
Or perhaps almost no one disputes that "the" virus "began" in Wuhan because it is very convenient that it did so with the lab there. How is "began" determined? This smacks as one of those foundational "facts" that almost no one questions, yet is unprovable and likely false. Why would the lab leak story suddenly be permitted, in a synchronous global way, by the media and politicians? Just part of the plan IMHO. The world has been led by the nose into a False dichotomy of lab vs wet market (but definitely "began" in Wuhan!). The great thing about this false dichotomy for the globalists is it keeps the pandemic preparedness grift alive and well - especially if it came from a lab. That all said I of course join you in your criticisms of the jab.
I would say that began was determined by pneumonias, but you are correct that a negative cannot be proven in the absolute sense:
It cannot be absolutely proven that the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with its unique double-arginine codons associated with its furin cleavage site, did not exist in prior years, but then it came into existence, and then it caused pneumonia.
The reason that you cannot prove that negative, is because we were not looking for it -- and finding something "new" does not automatically mean that it is new.