witpqs
Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: obvert
quote:
ORIGINAL: witpqs
This article contains additional background on past leaks of viruses from labs in China.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15844/coronavirus-china-cover-up
[EDIT] This is from a less trustworthy site known mostly for its Anti-Musilm articles and xenophobic content in general.
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/gatestone-institute-john-bolton-chairs-an-actual-fake-news-publisher-infamous-for-spreading-anti-muslim-hate/
The fact-checking website Snopes has found multiple false viral stories originating with Gatestone. For instance, the site claimed falsely that in London — called “Londonistan” in the piece — 423 mosques were built “on the sad ruins of English Christianity,” as 500 churches closed. But the story cherry-picked the data to ignore hundreds of newly opened churches.
Many of the fake stories have percolated into mainstream U.S. politics. Gatestone was largely responsible for the false claim that there are “no-go zones” through Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Sweden, and other European states where Muslim immigrants have set up a parallel society in which local police no longer enforce the law.
However, from my limited fact checking of links, it seems to be (mostly) well supported and researched, with links to the BBC, the Times and other reputable institutions. Curious anyway for more input on the content and possible validity.
Here is one excerpt, but there is much more about how accidental releases from Chinese labs have happened before. Much of the information comes from Chinese scientists and medical professionals, who are just as wary of their government (or more so) than many of us are. It would be good to get some input from anyone who speaks Chinese and can corroborate these sources.
"Less than 300 yards from the seafood market is the Wuhan branch of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention" wrote David Ignatius of the Washington Post.
"Researchers from that facility and the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology have posted articles about collecting bat coronaviruses from around China, for study to prevent future illness. Did one of those samples leak, or was hazardous waste deposited in a place where it could spread?".
"Collecting viruses" presumably does not exclude the possibility of a "leaked virus". Worse, if China is not able to protect its laboratories, it needs to be held accountable and made to pay for the devastating global damage.
"Experts know the new coronavirus is not a bioweapon. They disagree on whether it could have leaked from a research lab", stated The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Professor Richard Ebright of Rutgers University's Waksman Institute of Microbiology, and a major biosecurity expert, agreed with the Nature Medicine authors' argument that the coronavirus was not manipulated by humans. But Ebright does think it possible that the Covid-19 started as an accidental leak from a laboratory, such as one of the two in Wuhan, which are known to have been studying bat viruses:
"Virus collection or animal infection with a virus having the transmission characteristics of the outbreak virus would pose substantial risk of infection of a lab worker, and from the lab worker, the public."
Ebright has also claimed that bat coronaviruses are studied in Wuhan at Biosafety Level 2, "which provides only minimal protection" compared with the top BSL-4.
Although it sounds like conspiracy theory, there have been so many links to the labs in Wuhan that have some validity and many citations here bring up missing doctors, scientists and journalists from the December to January period of this crisis in China. there is also ample evidence the Chinese initially destroyed all evidence of this virus in the labs studying it after it was noticed in Wuhan.
Thanks for the comments, Erik. I had some in mind but decided to post the link by itself. One thing which caught my notice was the use of the word "trafficking", which I question because to me it connotes commerce of some sort. Certainly working with, studying, transporting, etc., but trafficking? Maybe not fair for the author to use that term.
I don't recall if I ever saw anything from that website before so I don't know their predilections. As you do, I like to see things from multiple sources/angles, and this is way beyond the first write-up I've seen on much of what they wrote. I also like the number of sources they linked, though at least one I looked at was not much content (but it was on a minor point).
As far as "fact check"-ing goes, sadly it long ago passed into a cesspool of abuse. Much of the time I see a "fact check" today it is just as likely to be blatantly wrong as what is ostensibly being checked, just like the rest of journalism. Often I see a week or two or three later when the fact check is utterly overturned and the person they sought to contradict is shown to have spoken/written truthfully, so I view fact checks with the same skepticism I do everything else.
As for Snopes itself, I (and probably everyone else) regarded them quite highly until the couple who (at that time) ran the web site admitted to falsifying a fact check during the 2008 US election cycle because they wanted to assist one candidate over another. Being mistaken is one thing, lying is something else entirely. Not that what they did even affected the matter in question, but when I learned of that I decided I will never take Snopes at its word ever again. The same has to be true for all sources of information, but they are way, way down on my trust list.
< Message edited by witpqs -- 4/6/2020 4:12:39 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: OT: Corona virus - 
If you're not comfortable being forthcoming in public about what's under your public implications/accusations, then we're done here and you should drop it. If you've got a good reason under what you've said about me in front of everybody else, then you should let everybody else know what that good reason is - or perhaps you should revisit your prior posts and retract your comments if you're not comfortable citing your factual basis for them (how one perceives a comment made by another is its own form of fact, but you won't tell me that either, it seems). 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread