zlacker

>The workers at the lab "were tested and there was no evidence found of Covid antibodies."

Tested by whom and how? If a trustworthy disinterested party positively identified the workers, took their blood samples, and tested them via a procedure with a low false-negative rate, then the test results are meaningful. Otherwise, there is reason for doubt.

>>nokcha+(OP)
Then there is no need to argue anymore, my friend.

>>nokcha+(OP)
Sure, I'll grant you that there's reason for doubting that the lab workers' tests were authentic. But I guess by that same logic, just trying to be accurate and fair here, there'd also be a reason for doubt -- and also for genuine credibility -- in all three of these scenarios.

1. The testing showing no Covid-19 antibodies was fraudulent and faked.

2. That testing was not faked. The workers did not have Covid-19 antibodies; their illness was caused by some other illness.

3. The report of the lab workers' illness is faked. (It came from a conservative newspaper, from unnamed officials citing an unnamed international partner -- where somewhere along that chain, someone had the proper motivation.)

I'm not arguing for any one of these things. We just honestly do not know.

>>Milner+e1
They were tested back in November for antibodies for something that China won't acknowledge even existed yet and we didn't put a name on for another month or two?