You’ll need to come armed with more than incredulity if you wish to debunk it. Even though the article does appear sensationalist, they have brought their receipts, they reference the source material and they go into the personalities and history behind the organisations and people involved.
Whereas you appear not to have even read it, let alone vetted it.
You’ll need to come armed with more than incredulity if you wish to debunk it. Even though the article does appear sensationalist, they have brought their receipts, they reference the source material and they go into the personalities and history behind the organisations and people involved.
Whereas you appear not to have even read it, let alone vetted it.
There is nothing to debunk if no evidence is presented
It’s in the article.
It helps if you read it and follow the source material.
His name clearly isn't Readerhorn!
Provide a quote from a WHO document or official that says what the threat title claims.
It’s in the article