Sometimes the person asking the question is a genuine jackass and sometimes they’re merely of a different partisan persuasion; but if you’re willing to ignore the person and address it, you might find it’s worth checking into anyway.
Jan-Feb 2020 - Masks don't work! don't worry about covid, get a flu shot!
April 2020 - Covid lives on surfaces for 17 days, disinfect all surfaces, also all masks are effective against covid(even cloth ones!)
Early 2021 - Vaccines(pfizer, moderna) will stop symptomatic covid with +90% effectiveness, also you have to have a vaccine otherwise you will spread covid. to others.
Late 2021 - Oops, cloth masks are not effective against covid(omicron), also vaccines for young children wear off in terms of effectiveness after a few weeks.
Hunter Biden had a laptop, but nothing illegal or unethical was on it.
And lab leak remains completely evidence free.
If you have actual evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to see it. But ever time I've asked in the past...
Summary here: https://reason.com/2022/03/17/the-new-york-times-belatedly-a...
Referenced NYT article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
tldr; NYTimes now says the emails have been authenticated. Make of it what you will.
Does it? I'm genuinely not up to date here but the Hunter Biden laptop story was all about the supposedly explosive stuff stored on the laptop and I've still not seen any proof of that.
edit: link: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
Great question. What new facts HAVE emerged that caused the New York Times to change their stance on the provenance of these emails? Seems like a story should have been written about that, right? Unless no new facts did emerge, but that would be even more concerning, wouldn't it? That would mean they were either intentionally misleading people or changing their mind capriciously.
It's bizarre to me the way people treat this as a non-issue. I myself wanted the story to be false because I didn't want it to cost Biden the election. I don't, however, approve of being mislead about things, even if I agree with the goals. This is doubly true for a news organization. It's a failure of their primary responsibility.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/hunter-biden-laptop-...
The WaPo one is more technical and the NY mag article is more lurid.
Hunter Biden's laptop was dismissed as a hoax but turns out it's legit
The "election company leaking data to China" thing was dismissed by the NYTimes like the day before the CEO got arrested.
The "Lab Leak" sort of falls under this too