In order to develop countermeasures!
/\
\/
In order to develop a specific counter measure to a specific contagion
one needs to know what that specific ( enemy) contagion IS
and by definition , if it is an enemy developed contagion, you don’t know what that contagion is
And if you don’t know what it is you can’t develop a counter measure is
So you are again commiting a presuppositional fallacy
Cart before the horse , if that’s easier for you to understand
Fauci used the same faulty presuppositional fallacy as justification for gain of function research.
It’s slick and sophisticated reasoning ,
but misleading,
probably intentionally a bait and switch con,
and false.
Jmho.
And if you don’t know what it is you can’t develop a counter measure is
Correction
And if you don’t know what it is you can’t develop a counter measure
probably intentionally a bait and switch con,
\/
Which brings us back to my comment that started this
(5/28/2023, 11:41:01 AM · 23 of 101
cuz1961 to BobL)
Victoria Nuland gave the con away with her awkward pause tell
when she ,
in my OPINION,
almost said bioweapon lab, stopped herself , and said biolab.
.
Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin by accident. It is by all means possible to develop a treatment without (exactly) knowing the specific contagion.
Regards,
Cases of severe bird flu affecting humans in that part of EUrope were being reported 20 years ago as I pointed out in my comment #84. People affected were farmers with flocks of fowl. Thus it would be reasonable for Ulraine to be studying this particular contagion as part of their agricultural science responsibility. Given the behavior of Russia over the entire past 100 years, considering the military aspect of contagions is also sensible and responsible. We know the Russians have lots of nasty bugs in their labs. Also they seem willing to commit any war crime they think they can get away with.