Facebook bans conversations saying coronavirus came from a lab after consulting with WHO

submitted by scrubking from reclaimthenet.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

Not surprising. The virus has been investigated quite thoroughly at this point, and there are no real indications that it was manmade. If you want a deep dive into the merits of the "lab theory", I can recommend this excellent video by potholer

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Excellent report. I've subscribed.

One of the problems with the spread of misinformation and disinformation is that it can be so difficult to locate their origins, and if spread with numerous professional influencers on social media &c, they can also be criticized as completely wrong, depending on responses. Thus one way to distract people from the potential association of virology CDC lab research and a virus outbreak at a filthy food market would be to create social media discussions around easily refutable reports about the potential links between the lab and market. When the majority sees this as false and thus censors and disagrees with it, the lab theory is thereby not trusted by the majority. If not this theory for manipulating social media opinion, one could simply argue that the Government of China has effectively hidden the evidence for the start of the virus, and thus we will not get the information, and thus cannot claim that there is a connection between the lab and market. My main point is this: because it is not entirely implausible that the source of the virus included lab experiments, we do not have evidence that there is no connection between this virus and a CDC lab in Wuhan. Thus, rather than censor comments about labs, there should be studies like potholer54's and news media bias sites that trace and assess the spread of information. Unfounded claims can therefore be mentioned, as long as there is a note that there is no proof, but that there may be some merit in the claim. Perhaps tag any post about a lab with a note like, 'unproven', and let the conversation continue. I argued about this over a year ago with others in social media, and at that time located Wuhan CDC reports that are not mentioned in potholer54's study. The Whuhan CDC reports date back to 2011 and earlier, and assess SARS virus research that is ongoing, and is several decades old. Is it possible that a lab assistant could get infected during this process? It's not implausible. And as noted by a colleague in China: the government's first response to all news is how to manipulate it.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Knowing that there was SARS research going on at one of these facilities gives me pause. However, I feel like if there was any compelling evidence that the initial infection actually originated from this lab, then the intelligence community would know about it. And since Trump was already in the middle of a trade war, and was getting hammered on the campaign trail over his administration's COVID-19 response, either Trump or someone on his team would have asked for a briefing on where precisely in China the virus came from.

And if there were any evidence that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab, whether as a bioweapon or as part of a well-intentioned research project, Trump would have weaponized this information and made sure the public knew about it.

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much, but:

  • He was pretty sure to blame "Chi-na" directly, making sure to call it the "Wuhan flu" / "China virus" at every possible turn
  • He was distrustful of the WHO's chumminess and deference to Chinese officials, to the point of withdrawing the US from that organization

It's not certain that US intelligence would know this kind of detail about Chinese internal affairs and what's being studied in one lab. Especially if China had time to cover some tracks & come up with a good story (look! pangolins!). Meanwhile political distrust in the US meant that departments weren't necessarily coordinated enough to see it...

Among things that also give me pause is the cocksure Dazsak-penned letter in The Lancet that was published in February 2020—well before anyone outside of the officials had investigated anything... before even the WHO. How could he dismiss with such certainty that a lab leak was a "conspiracy theory"?

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The evidence has always pointed to Wuhan being ground zero, so calling it those names doesn't indicate he knows something we don't. And to your 2nd point, it is true that the WHO is at least somewhat in the pocket of the CCP.

It is true, it's not certain that intel agencies would know what's going on inside the lab. But I think it's probable that they would. Intel agencies are very well aware of the threat of biological warfare, and there are a number of efforts to actively monitor developments, especially in a rising power like China.

With regards to "political distrust leading to a lack of coordination", that is very much a pre-9/11 thing. I'm speaking as a former military member that had an SCI clearance and plenty of first-hand experience with what goes on inside the system. When we were getting briefed into the various programs, the lessons learned from 9/11 were widely cited to explain why the intelligence sharing programs are set up the way they are. There is a lot of cooperation between agencies nowadays.

With regards to the letter, it looks to me like a political puff piece.

How could he dismiss with such certainty that a lab leak was a "conspiracy theory"?

I think at that point, they probably couldn't. But you can find plenty of pro-CCP propaganda like this on the internet. At any rate, my belief that it probably wasn't manmade is based on what the people that I think aren't comprimised by CCP interests are telling me, not by what people like this are telling me.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I love reading two shills talking. It is really cute.

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Haha, thanks for your insight there. Where's my George Soros money?