Reply With QuoteI mucked up the image link. This is it https://imgur.com/a/APEIxMc
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
On February 11, 2020, the WHO (World Health Organisation) announced it had officially renamed what had been known as the 2019 novel coronavirus to COVID-19.
Novel, in addition to being defined as a lengthy book, also means: new and original, not like anything seen before.
This is the link to the WHO page: https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...that-causes-it
Here's the important parts of what it states (in bold text):-
Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it
Official names have been announced for the virus responsible for COVID-19 (previously known as “2019 novel coronavirus”) and the disease it causes. The official names are:
Disease
coronavirus disease
(COVID-19)
Virus
severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
(SARS-CoV-2)
As anyone can discern, the name COVID-19 was born on that date and so was the virus name which became SARS-CoV-2 having previously being described as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
But it's complete bollocks because the disease and virus were both known and had been named as COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 at least five years prior during 2015.
Who said so? Public Health England did. Public Health England is a UK government agency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_England
Below is an image of a Public Health England document which highlights those names and the year it was published.
[Edit: the image file is too large to include with this post. It can be viewed by clicking the direct link: https://imgur.com/a/APEIxMc]
'Ah, Organ, you thick kent, that must be a photoshop job,' someone will be tempted to respond.
But it isn't a hoax. Because that document is hosted at a UK government site that has a UK government URL which kind of suggests it's 100% authentic. What's marked on the image can be found by scrolling to page 4 beneath Single Infections here: https://assets.publishing.service.go...SNfEwlEtitQlqE
The names COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 were patently not created in February 2020. That we know COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infections were known of and had to be reported before March 2015 in the UK means the WHO had the thick end of five years to commission a vaccine to combat it, which is contrary to the fake news they have been spreading.
I mucked up the image link. This is it https://imgur.com/a/APEIxMc
Was that it? Your big reveal was a document that was published in 2015 and was updated recentlyFair play.
It took me 3 minutes to look into your conspiracy theory and post that response.
So which is more likely....Originally Posted by Heisenberg
Was that it? Your big reveal was a document that was published in 2015 and was updated recently
...that covid-19 has been around for five years but there is a massive effort by scientists and medical research teams worldwide to keep it secret, while the ramifications of lockdown destroy global and local economies?
...that someone didn't change the "published" date on that particular document?
They also added the secret virus to an official Gov document 5 years before it's release just in case somebody contracted it in a British prison and it needed to be reportedSo which is more likely....
...that covid-19 has been around for five years but there is a massive effort by scientists and medical research teams worldwide to keep it secret, while the ramifications of lockdown destroy global and local economies?
...that someone didn't change the "published" date on that particular document?
Nowhere on that document says it has been updated. The URL for it says it was uploaded in 2015.
It doesn't say it was uploaded in 2015 at all. 2015 is part of the saved file name which someone hasn't changed on the server's directory.
Conspiracy... Or someone not changing a file name on a document which hadn't been updated in 5 years?
Conspiracy!! Obviously!
Screenshot_20200415-154856.jpg
That's the file, right? Says it was updated in March 2020 on the site. Someone hasn't changed the file name, Organ.
Organ, seriously. You're embarrassing yourself. You're better than this.
"The URL says it was uploaded in 2015"
Organ did you come up with this theory yourself or did you find this evidence on one of your big brain websites?
Do you think that if Morg had decided to write a witty piece about Sludge's love of the Metal Band, Plandemic rather than take the word from the lexicon of stargazing websites he frequents he might be feeling happier right now?
Obviously updated. Thinking beyond the link provided by Heisenberg, what is the initiative to name it after a year in 2015?
Oh I forgot... illuminati, NWO, David Icke, vaccines, yadi yada...
Is he though?
You've had an absolute nightmare here, I'm afraid.
As Heisenberg has already pointed out, the Gov.UK website clearly states that this particular document was first issued in December 2013, updated in April 2015 and further updated (to include Covid-19) in March 2020. What Public Health England haven't done yet is renew the copyright from the 2015 version, although maybe they won't have to - I'm not an expert in copyright, so I can't be sure. If they do have to, it's sure to take a little time under the current circumstances.
The Gov.UK website can be a nightmare for the people who have to upload documents to it or amend any documents that it already holds. How do I know this? Because I'm one of those people. Indeed, two documents that relate directly to my particular area of work have had to have minor amendments twice during the last week alone as a result of the Covid-19 situation - firstly by someone at our HQ who didn't really know what they were doing, and secondly by me correcting their mistakes.
One of the documents concerned was first published in April 2014. It has since been amended in November 2017, December 2017, January 2018, May 2018 (twice), November 2018 and April 2020 (twice). However, the publication date reads: 17 April 2014.
That's the way the website works. The first publication date is quoted. The amendments dates are noted (but not always accurately and sometimes amendment dates are missed), and the latest version of the document is always the one that should be available for download (although that's not always the case either if errors are made).
Some government departments assert copyright for 50 years and by the time that period expires most information is of little or no value. A edited work can trigger a new Copyright date if there have been substantial amendments. Copyright doesn't have to be registered and/or renewed per se and the (C) symbol is not required to protect a work. Just sayin'
If only Morg had listened to Nels......sorry HeathBlues's 5 year rule!
I'd guess the addition of one new disease to a long list wouldn't constitute a substantial amendment.
I was wondering about the copyright rules a few months ago when I noticed one of the documents we issue to shipping companies has a copyright date. The problem is that the date in the small text is some time back in the Eighties (probably 1988), while the regulations have been amended several times since then, as has the content of the document.
To be honest, that's the only document of ours that I can ever recall seeing a copyright on and it makes no material difference as we give copies away free of charge to the shipping companies. My guess is that it was copyrighted with new regulations in 1988 and that has been forgotten about since or ignored when new versions have been proof-read.
Don't be coy.....It wasn't the only thing you mucked up was it!
Just saw that picture is saved as 2020 smoking gun
So it's Organ & Trump Vs the CCMB baying mob & the world's liberal media.
This should be an interesting contest, because the current US investigation into the WHO is already examining the possibility that the virus was leaked from the Wuhan biolab, and that it may have been present in Wuhan earlier than thought.
It should also be noted that the CCMB baying mob and the world's liberal media don't have a very good track record when it comes to all things Trump.
Any reason you didn't mention Organ's track record?So it's Organ & Trump Vs the CCMB baying mob & the world's liberal media.
This should be an interesting contest, because the current US investigation into the WHO is already examining the possibility that the virus was leaked from the Wuhan biolab, and that it may have been present in Wuhan earlier than thought.
It should also be noted that the CCMB baying mob and the world's liberal media don't have a very good track record when it comes to all things Trump.
Posting Permissions
