Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrTiTus
Be careful, because there are three "weasle words" (phrases) in there.
"At this time" [subject to change]
"there is no evidence" [we are not stating that this is true, just that we don't have data which meets our criteria]
"significant role" [perhaps there have been instances, but they are not numerous]
Which of course, is not me suggesting that the opposite of the statement is true, but it's very carefully phrased. A more reassuring statement would read:
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, cannot be spread to humans via animals.
But here's the funny thing: the official narrative is that SARS-CoV-2 was spread to humans via a bat (an animal).
So now we have two contradictory statements. How do we hold these in our head, and still maintain we are being told the truth?
|
There were reports last year that there was an animal that spread it.
So yes, there is your "significant" part.
At this time. Do you know what is great. They acknowledge that data and knowledge can change over time. Their mindset is not set in stone that cannot be changed like others.
This is what we want in society.
There is no evidence. Yep, that just goes hand in hand. Proving the absence of something is harder than proving something is there.