Study Says Covid-19 Has No Natural Ancestor And Was Created by Chinese Scientists.

[mellowyellow]

Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”.

The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

Source: The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website​

 

[Mike]

The main purpose of my posting this was to bring the story/study into the light for people to see, make note of and/or pass judgement on. Ignoring the story or suggestively impugning it by trying to put down the source, for whatever reason, does a disservice to people capable of thinking for themselves.

Jon, there are some here who will attack any posting, where the proof
is a link to the Daily Mail, or any other newspaper that they don't like,
I have had it many times in the past where the subject of the thread is
not the newspaper.

Mike.

 

[JonDouglas]

Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”.

The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

Source: The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website​

Interesting. Given that the Daily Mail often gets its stories from other news sources, you have to wonder how often the Wiki folks ban the other sources. The idea of an open-source encyclopedia banning a newspaper seems ludicrous. With the Daily Mail, as with most media sources, you do need to check the story for some semblance of validity.

 

[JonDouglas]

Is the United states responsible for Covid 19?
The united states funded 'gain of function' research in the wuhan lab because it was too dangerous to do on home soil.
President Obama banned 'Gain of function 'research in 2014.
Fauci restarted it 2017, it lead to the lab modifying bat viruses so that they could spread to humans, hence the term 'gain of function'.

Vanity Fair has published a major expose on this subject, there is a lot of evidence now.
It is going to get ugly.

I'd like to think China is mostly responsible for c19 and that that Fauci, not the U.S., was just an easily-led dupe/stooge in the process. Given the most recent evidence of Fauci's love for the limelight and book about himself, one might speculate this he was still trying to be a great medical hero after how badly he bungled the AIDS/HIV work he did earlier. The words "Napolean Complex" also come to mind with this guy. I also think Fauci, either knowingly or unknowingly, let himself be used by some powerful political figures and forces. It doesn't seem like a coincidence that Fauci was able to in certain circles of people who stood to benefit mightily from the lockdown.

 

[garyt1957]

Is the United states responsible for Covid 19?
The united states funded 'gain of function' research in the wuhan lab because it was too dangerous to do on home soil.
President Obama banned 'Gain of function 'research in 2014.
Fauci restarted it 2017, it lead to the lab modifying bat viruses so that they could spread to humans, hence the term 'gain of function'.

Vanity Fair has published a major expose on this subject, there is a lot of evidence now.
It is going to get ugly.

That wouldn't make the US responsible, after all the US wasn't responsible for the leak, or the coverup. The US might be responsible in a way for letting the research be done in a China lab which they knew was not entirely safe. I'm not sure why they'd fund an "enemy" or rival like China to do the work anyway. Imagine if they found something really deadly they could then use against us? That's like paying China to develop weapons for us, not smart.

 

[911]

Newsweek: How Amateur Sleuths Broke the Wuhan Lab Story and Embarrassed the Media

For most of last year, the idea that the coronavirus pandemic could have been triggered by a laboratory accident in Wuhan, China, was largely dismissed as a racist conspiracy theory of the alt-right. The Washington Post in early 2020 accused Senator Tom Cotton of "fanning the embers of a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked by experts." CNN jumped in with "How to debunk coronavirus conspiracy theories and misinformation from friends and family." Most other mainstream outlets, from The New York Times ("fringe theory") to NPR ("Scientists debunk lab accident theory"), were equally dismissive. (Newsweek was an exception, reporting in April 2020 that the WIV was involved in gain-of-function research and might have been the site of a lab leak; Mother Jones, Business Insider, the NY Post and FOX News were also exceptions.) But in the last week or so, the story has burst into the public discourse. President Joe Biden has demanded an investigation by U.S. intelligence. And the mainstream media, in an astonishing about-face, is treating the possibility with deadly seriousness.​

​

The reason for the sudden shift in attitudes is clear: over the weeks and months of the pandemic, the pileup of circumstantial evidence pointing to the Wuhan lab kept growing—until it became too substantial to ignore. The people responsible for uncovering this evidence are not journalists or spies or scientists. They are a group of amateur sleuths, with few resources except curiosity and a willingness to spend days combing the internet for clues. Throughout the pandemic, about two dozen or so correspondents, many anonymous, working independently from many different countries, have uncovered obscure documents, pieced together the information, and explained it all in long threads on Twitter—in a kind of open-source, collective brainstorming session that was part forensic science, part citizen journalism, and entirely new.​

- - - - - - - - - - -​

More at the source.​

Well, darn. Those pesky amateurs are at it again, mucking up the bureaucrats' best BS strategy; however, I don't think the media is embarrassed. They did what they were told.. Speaking of strategy, word on the street is that the administration is currently working on an exit strategy for certain individuals. Under the bus with dignity and honor?

Last March, Dr. Redfield of the CDC was being interviewed on CNN and he made the statement that he thought it was possible that the Virus was created in the lab and then leaked. He continued by also saying, "...either way, science will figure it out." He was highly mocked for his statements by some members of Congress.

I agree with him. Science will figure it out.

 

[JonDouglas]

Read some more about the "lab theory" and guess who briefed world leaders over a year ago that the virus might have leaked from a lab. You guessed it: More Evidence That Fauci Wasn't Being Straight With the American People

“I was told at that time, back in the spring [of 2020], that Dr. Fauci had gone over to a meeting of world health leaders in Europe around the World Health Assembly, and actually briefed them on the information that they were looking at — that this could have been a potential lab leak, that this strain looked unusual,” former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said on CBS News’ “Face The Nation” on Sunday. “So those discussions were going on. And I was told that by a very senior official in the Trump administration. I’ve reconfirmed that conversation. That happened, you know, at the time contemporaneously with—with that meeting over a year ago. So I think early on when they looked at the strain, they had suspicions.”​

​

Gottlieb said that further analysis “dispelled some of those suspicions,” but Fauci publicly refuted the man-made virus theory for a year even though he was told in the early days of the pandemic that COVID-19 had “unusual features” that “potentially look engineered.”​

​

“On a phylogenetic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir. The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” NIH scientist Kristian Andersen told Fauci on February 1, 2020.​

​

More at Source.​

Note: The source is not apolitical but has a record for being able to ferret out information.

 

[JonDouglas]

From Sky News Australia:

 

[Dancing_Queen]

Story in the Daily Mail:

An explosive new study claims that Chinese scientists created COVID-19 in a Wuhan lab, then tried to cover their tracks by reverse-engineering versions of the virus to make it look like it evolved naturally from bats. The paper's authors, British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen, wrote that they have had 'prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China' for a year - but were ignored by academics and major journals. ​

​

Dalgleish is a professor of oncology at St George's University, London, and is best known for his breakthrough creating the first working 'HIV vaccine', to treat diagnosed patients and allow them to go off medication for months. Sørensen, a virologist, is chair of pharmaceutical company, Immunor, which developed a coronavirus vaccine candidate called Biovacc-19. Dalgleish also has share options in the firm. ​

​

The shocking allegations in the study include accusations of 'deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data' at Chinese labs, and it notes the silencing and disappearance of scientists in the communist country who spoke out. ​

More at Daily Mail Article

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, the same as the National Enquirer. I wouldn't put much stock in what it has to say.

 

[JonDouglas]

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, the same as the National Enquirer. I wouldn't put much stock in what it has to say.

As I mentioned to someone else, the Daily Mail gets its stories from so many other sources that you won't be able to put stock in anybody. They're more like a news integrator with a coating of tabloid sensationalism. If you fact check their stories, you'll find a good number of them are true to a great, if not 100%. Personally, I only quote the Mail when I know the story is up in other "more respectible" media. Thus, when somebody hollers about the Mail, they often end up being embarrassed by the fact that the story has reliable "legs." Also, welcome to the forum if I haven't said so already.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

As I mentioned to someone else, the Daily Mail gets its stories from so many other sources that you won't be able to put stock in anybody. They're more like a news integrator with a coating of tabloid sensationalism. If you fact check their stories, you'll find a good number of them are true to a great, if not 100%. Personally, I only quote the Mail when I know the story is up in other "more respectible" media. Thus, when somebody hollers about the Mail, they often end up being embarrassed by the fact that the story has reliable "legs." Also, welcome to the forum if I haven't said so already.

So, what "more respectable media" have this story?

 

[JonDouglas]

So, what "more respectable media" have this story?

Oh, scandasia, theweek, indiatoday, skynewsAU, and others. Of course to highly political partisans, nothing is respectable that doesn't play to their worldview.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

Oh, scandasia, theweek, indiatoday, skynewsAU, and others. Of course to highly political partisans, nothing is respectable that doesn't play to their worldview.

Since I haven't heard of these, I'd need to check them out for credibility. I used to teach people how to do this, but don't feel like going through all of that at the moment; it's time consuming. What I do know, however, is that it can take 7-8 years to figure out where something originated and that's if there's transparency and co-operation everywhere. Since we don't have either from the Chinese and it's been only a very short time, there's no possible way that anyone can know where it came from.

 

[JonDouglas]

Since I haven't heard of these, I'd need to check them out for credibility. I used to teach people how to do this, but don't feel like going through all of that at the moment; it's time consuming. What I do know, however, is that it can take 7-8 years to figure out where something originated and that's if there's transparency and co-operation everywhere. Since we don't have either from the Chinese and it's been only a very short time, there's no possible way that anyone can know where it came from.

There is a another source to be considered - the network of contacts you have with people you trust to give you the best information they can. These are often the people who break the stores the media picks up on. You can't cite or publish these but you can use them to qualify what you see or hear elsewhere. Pity the person who relies on the mainstream media and bureaucratic enclaves where they have to "craft" the narrative.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

There is a another source to be considered - the network of contacts you have with people you trust to give you the best information they can. These are often the people who break the stores the media picks up on. You can't cite or publish these but you can use them to qualify what you see or hear elsewhere. Pity the person who relies on the mainstream media and bureaucratic enclaves where they have to "craft" the narrative.

This is true. The only problem is that often these people are all getting their information from the same sources. Therefore, it doesn't matter if one person, personally, uses a particular source or that person gets information from people who have gotten information from other people who got it from that source. That's one way to tell that something doesn't smell quite right and needs a really careful look-see.

An example is some of the information retrieved from a web search. Have you ever noticed how so many give the same information in the exact same words -- and not one of them quotes any source? "But see -- all of these sources are saying the same thing! It must be true!" Nope. They're all just plagiarizing whatever source they're all copying.

You can believe me or not when I tell you that it's impossible to know at this point whether or not the virus came from a lab in Wuhan because it takes 7-8 years, etc. etc. Maybe yes, maybe no. However, it wouldn't hurt to take it into consideration along with everything else when trying to make a self-determination as to whether the information is correct or not.

 

[JonDouglas]

Last March, Dr. Redfield of the CDC was being interviewed on CNN and he made the statement that he thought it was possible that the Virus was created in the lab and then leaked. He continued by also saying, "...either way, science will figure it out." He was highly mocked for his statements by some members of Congress.

I agree with him. Science will figure it out.

There's always the downstream issue of what science someone is buying into: Medical science, aerosol/fluidics science, political science or government propaganda purporting to be science. When you hear, "The science is settled", you should assume it isn't.

 

[OneEyedDiva]

I spent 28 years in public health. I didn't believe the alleged source of HIV when our big bosses came from the State Department of Health's main office in Trenton to fill us in on the very first (two) cases of this new mysterious disease. And I didn't believe the bats caused COVID story either. I suspected each may have been manufactured in labs and leaked whether by accident or with malicious intent. It will be interesting to see what the official, final report says.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

There's always the downstream issue of what science someone is buying into: Medical science, aerosol/fluidics science, political science or government propaganda purporting to be science. When you hear, "The science is settled", you should assume it isn't.

That's the way science works -- and the media doesn't help people to understand it. The science is rarely (comparatively speaking) settled as far as scientists are concerned.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

I spent 28 years in public health. I didn't believe the alleged source of HIV when our big bosses came from the State Department of Health's main office in Trenton to fill us in on the very first (two) cases of this new mysterious disease. And I didn't believe the bats caused COVID story either. I suspected each may have been manufactured in labs and leaked whether by accident or with malicious intent. It will be interesting to see what the official, final report says.

What do you believe now about HIV, OneEyed? And what's your reasoning for that belief? I'm just curious.