221–230 of 792 posts
[flagged]
People noticed less because he was muckraking for the “right side”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not censored millions upon millions of posts discussing the idea, for one thing. The conversation and narrative was warped, and a lot of people are now rather extremely divorced from the reality around this issue. Gain of function research would have been examined much more closely, and with the origins known we may have had much less fumbling around protocols for containment, such as knowing much sooner that it was…
You are correct. I guess people can't handle that. This is from the article, it tracks with your sentiment: Said Metzl, “Had US government officials including Dr. Fauci stated from day one that a COVID-19 research-related origin was a very real possibility, and made clear that we had little idea what viruses were being held at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, what work was being done there, and who was doing that wor…
Unless someone has specimen samples from the sick WIV scientists, this doesn't really prove anything. Nasty respiratory viruses with Covid-like symptoms aren't actually that rare, and there's a lot of overlap between a bad respiratory infection and a mild Covid infection. I've talked to numerous people in the US who swore they had the full checklist of Covid symptoms well before the November 2019 date they're talking…
i remember in 2020 or so they were also talking about covid being in the sewage in some european city (i think in italy? and/or spain?) but my assumption was they were detecting things that were also common in other influenza strains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in my experience, a pure reputation destruction post is generally non-credible, and you posted an establishment media interview on someone who supports twitter: of course they have a bone to pick. for the sake of honest conversation, can you list what conspiracy theories you're referring to? because the last few conspiracy theories i can remember somehow all turned out to be true. so i'm really concerned with what is…
Not really. You can easily find this information. Perhaps start here? https://thebanter.substack.com/p/matt-taibbis-puff-piece-on-...
they did, this isn't insane to believe either, they did this to jeff bezos too. US intelligence excels at signal intelligence, this isn't a conspiracy. it then goes on to make even less sense:
> Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the Agency
duh, but obviously putin is, why are they deflecting? this is low quality reasoning that fails to address any meat of the arguments.
plus, what does any of this have to do with matt? and covid? its like every time i ask a question there's more and more deflections away from the original topic. its so strange.
> Sources within the US government say that three of the earliest people to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 were Ben Hu, Yu Ping, and Yan Zhu. All were members of the Wuhan lab suspected to have leaked the pandemic virus.
> It is unclear who in the U.S. government had access to the intelligence about the sick WIV workers, how long they had it, and why it was not shared with the public.
At absolutely no point in this article are any new "sources" pointed out.
The authors make that statement early on so as to make the reader think something new in the article is going to be revealed.
Instead we get multiple paragraphs of links to various quotes and suppositions from various people, some of whom were involved in investigating the origins and some who work in the field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had personally decided by April 2020 that there was sufficient information for me to believe that Covid was a lab-enhanced pathogen that was accidentally released by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. My "source" was mainly common sense (the simplest solution is usually the right one, and guilty people doth protest too much), an understanding of probability (there is a lab studying the pathogen right n…
> My "source" was mainly common sense (the simplest solution is usually the right one https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html 75% of all new infectious diseases come from animals. Isn't the simplest solution that COVID also came from animals? Just because it was a bad one doesn't make it less likely. Where did smallpox come from? Polio? Spanish flu? Is it strange that the lab was near the wet mark…
It is hard to tell from the writing - are the sources claiming that they know the researchers were sick with Covid-19 specifically, or are they saying they know the researchers with sick with something, and that they had symptoms consistent with covid-19? We go from: >Sources within the US government say that three of the earliest people to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 were Ben Hu, Yu Ping, and Yan Zhu. To: >not o…
"Politicians, scientists, journalists, and amateur researchers for years now have zeroed in on the possibility that Covid-19 may have resulted from U.S.-funded gain-of-function research conducted in China."
And the authors leave it at that. Maybe some references to articles would be nice? Or should I just trust their meta-analysis or what.
[flagged]
It is peculiar how all of these recent "conspiracy theories" as named by corporate media eventually turn out to be true.
There is nothing wrong with theorizing either, but conspiracy theories often start with the conclusion, and then try to find what facts can fit that narrative. That’s how you can discern more critical theories from just made up stuff or disjointed data points to fit the narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not really typical for healthy researchers in their 30s to end up in the hospital with seasonal illness symptoms though.
Did they "end up in the hospital" or did they go to the hospital to get a diagnosis? I live in a city, and my PCP is in the local hospital. "seasonal illness symptoms" sounds FAR more like they were just sick and went to the doctor, like anyone else would. For medicine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All you need for a market cluster is one infected person to visit once, & pass the infection along to one or more people who then also spend time there and pass it on. There's no challenging "why" needed.
The same explanation works in the other direction.
No matter the origin of a new highly-nfectious respiratory disease, certain dense public places will quickly turn up as locations-of-spread.
But 3 researchers with likely larger-than-average scrupulosity about infection risks, working on increasing the virulence of bat viruses? Pretty sus!