I'll be curious. Since the quote tracks with what she has said before, it would surprise me if she said anything much different. The idea that anyone "misunderstood" or was "confused" about the CDC's message is just silly. Does she really think people actually buy that line of argument?
-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Trial By Error: The CDC’s Pathetic Response to Reuters
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
I'll be curious. Since the quote tracks with what she has said before, it would surprise me if she said anything much different. The idea that anyone "misunderstood" or was "confused" about the CDC's message is just silly. Does she really think people actually buy that line of argument?
Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It's as if they just don't care if people buy it or not. Saying one thing simply to avoid saying something else they maybe perceive as more damaging.
Stuart
Established Member (Voting Rights)
Also known as 'Alternative Facts,' I always said anything about ME could be buried in a deep enough pile of bullshit, that is the CDCs and UK BPS crowds job.
It's been buried since the 1934 outbreak and the sealed class action lawsuit settled with the staff of the Los Angeles County Hospital.
Has new evidence been found to substantiate that claim? I thought the only evidence was a discussion which Byron Hyde had with one of the last surviving patients. If so, it would seem to undermine the whole origin myth, and would require a lot of rethinking.
Inara
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It's in Osler's Web, and I thought Hillary Johnson wouldn't just trust on "hearsay"?
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
If we don't have access to any supporting evidence then I think it's worth staying sceptical. Did Osler's Web give say where the claim came from? I've not read Osler's Web, but when I was reading Johnson's blog I thought she could be extravagant in some of her claims.