3 ms·

Wow, that is some very tortured logic. As to the specifics of Weinstein, I don't share your fixation - so I can't address your complaints about him. > ...there

Wow, that is some very tortured logic. As to the specifics of Weinstein, I don't share your fixation - so I can't address your complaints about him. > ...there is tons of examples of 'misinformation' in the PDF ... It's an amazing and thorough bit of research actually. You're confusing "research" and "propaganda". It is easy to tell the difference using this little trick: research defines terms, propaganda dumps "tons of examples" from unsympathetic caricatures. One is intellectually honest and the other is manipulative. > The situation is fluid, facts change... Uh, define "facts". Because your spirited defense of calculated lies from public health officials makes me think you've somehow redefined the word. Here is an example of a fact: the virus has always been a lab leak. It isn't a fact now that Fauci's emails have been FOIA'd and scientists are admitting that they immediately recognized signs of genetic engineering but didn't speak up because they thought it might help the bad orange man. It was always a fact - one that was, in the best cases, strongly countermessaged with "medical disinformation" warnings, and in the worst cases used to justify deplatforming. Hell, the boards figured out the specific lab at least a month before travel restrictions - I remember reading their job postings page seeking bat virologists through Google Translate. > People are not censored, they're just told to not talk... bwahahahaha, seriously?! Aside from your creative take on what is and isn't censorship - you know that the Whitehouse is directly instructing platforms, publicly and with no hint of shame, to censor Americans? The whole "Businesses can do whatever they want, build your own Internet" line was already total BS, but Biden has totally blown that dodge to smithereens by blatantly directing platforms on who needs a good banhammering.

jollybean 5y ago
The 'Lab Leak Theory' is not a fact it's just conjecture. The people have difficulty with this is exactly why misinformation is so easily spread.
- sennight 5y ago
  By that standard the 'Natural Origin Theory' is conjecture. Unless you believe the third or fourth official Chinese explanation: a bat urinated in a researcher's mouth... while he was totally not in a lab funded by the US for gain of function research.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    This is false. We have tons of direct evidence for 'Natural Origin' and there is no other competing theory that matches the evidence. While some details are still murky - our actual 'Origin' resembles something around the bounds of that theory. We have no evidence of a 'Lab Leak'. It's just conjecture. While lab leaks do happen with some frequency, animals do spread disease to humans (i.e. Zoonotic transfer) far more often and this has been going on since the dawn of time. The previous SARS crisis was sparked in this manner, which is why, during the initial phases of the pandemic, this theory was 'most likely' even though it was also conjecture. Moreover, it's another good example of how 'facts change'. The only reason the 'Lab Leak' theory has material credence or plausibility is because of the lack of evidence for it's competing theory i.e. no trail of Zoonotic transfer as of yet found. If you have actual evidence about something, then make your public claim so that it can be scrutinized. Otherwise, don't spread false information, especially on highly public channels.
    - sennight 5y ago
      > We have tons of direct evidence for 'Natural Origin' Tons, huh? So if that is the case then why is the WHO backpedaling [0] on the premature zoonotic classification, after ignoring everyone pointing out the fact that it was premature from the get-go? Did the "facts" change again? It never gets old, watching Tedros erode institutional trust. > If you have actual evidence about something, then make your public claim so that it can be scrutinized. I think I'll wait for you to break off a piece of that "tons" of evidence first. I'm really looking forward to you backing up the whole bat-soup/peed-in-my-mouth story with good solid evidence. [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-lab-covid-19-origin-premature-tedros https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-la...

jollybean 5y ago

The 'Lab Leak Theory' is not a fact it's just conjecture. The people have difficulty with this is exactly why misinformation is so easily spread.

sennight 5y ago
By that standard the 'Natural Origin Theory' is conjecture. Unless you believe the third or fourth official Chinese explanation: a bat urinated in a researcher's mouth... while he was totally not in a lab funded by the US for gain of function research.
- jollybean 5y ago
  This is false. We have tons of direct evidence for 'Natural Origin' and there is no other competing theory that matches the evidence. While some details are still murky - our actual 'Origin' resembles something around the bounds of that theory. We have no evidence of a 'Lab Leak'. It's just conjecture. While lab leaks do happen with some frequency, animals do spread disease to humans (i.e. Zoonotic transfer) far more often and this has been going on since the dawn of time. The previous SARS crisis was sparked in this manner, which is why, during the initial phases of the pandemic, this theory was 'most likely' even though it was also conjecture. Moreover, it's another good example of how 'facts change'. The only reason the 'Lab Leak' theory has material credence or plausibility is because of the lack of evidence for it's competing theory i.e. no trail of Zoonotic transfer as of yet found. If you have actual evidence about something, then make your public claim so that it can be scrutinized. Otherwise, don't spread false information, especially on highly public channels.
  - sennight 5y ago
    > We have tons of direct evidence for 'Natural Origin' Tons, huh? So if that is the case then why is the WHO backpedaling [0] on the premature zoonotic classification, after ignoring everyone pointing out the fact that it was premature from the get-go? Did the "facts" change again? It never gets old, watching Tedros erode institutional trust. > If you have actual evidence about something, then make your public claim so that it can be scrutinized. I think I'll wait for you to break off a piece of that "tons" of evidence first. I'm really looking forward to you backing up the whole bat-soup/peed-in-my-mouth story with good solid evidence. [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-lab-covid-19-origin-premature-tedros https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-la...