21 ms·

I don't trust this article at all. > Sources within the US government say that three of the earliest people to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 were Ben Hu, Yu

by geuis 3y ago

I don't trust this article at all. > 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.

NoGravitas 3y ago
Yeah, reading this to see what the evidence is, it all comes down to "anonymous State Department sources", and some informed speculation from people in the field. I don't actually think an accidental lab leak is all that unlikely, but I'm also not being presented with any evidence for it.
wbsun 3y ago
My sources on the planet Earth say that nowadays this is the way to write news, essays, blogs, podcast videos, and books in order to attract attentions.
letmevoteplease 3y ago
You won't have to wait long for confirmation. The Director of National Intelligence will be required by law to declassify information about the infected researchers on June 18th, including their names, symptoms, date of onset and role at WIV.[1] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/619/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/619...
- geuis 3y ago
  Hey that's a cool link. I'm kinda embarrassed to say I didn't know you could track bills like this going through Congress. Thanks for the lead.
  - nevi-me 3y ago
    I discounted the article, especially the below part because anyone can say they're "100%" certain about something while they're not. > When a source was asked how certain they were that these were the identities of the three WIV scientists who developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in the fall of 2019, we were told, “100%” ... That's until I saw that Act on Congress' website. It'll be interesting to see what information is declassified. If there's proof that the mentioned scientists were first to fall ill, I wonder what the consequences are.
    - throwaway4good 3y ago
      Maybe it will be used as an excuse to cancel the forth-coming Blinken visit to China: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/14/politics/blinken-china-announcement/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/14/politics/blinken-china-an... Blinken to travel to China this weekend as US looks to reset relations after spy balloon incident
      - unsupp0rted 3y ago
        That would look bad diplomatically. It’s one thing to make up an excuse before going. It’s another thing to cancel in the middle and leave. Not sure what would be accomplished by this.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  >You won't have to wait long for confirmation. Confirmation that they were sick. Not confirmation of what they were sick with.
  - Reason077 3y ago
    Given the location, the timing, the symptoms, the severity of the illness (it's unusual for 'flu to put healthy young adults in hospital) I think we can be pretty confident in our guess.
    - wavefunction 3y ago
      My Aunt was killed by the flu. She had a pre-existing unknown heart-condition and despite her healthy lifestyle the flu weakened her heart enough that she needed a heart-transplant in her early 20s. She died at age 27. I tell this story whenever it is possible, to educate people about what the flu is capable of doing, whenever someone says the flu is "no big deal." Statistically, perhaps not. Unless you're the statistic that is.
      - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
        Not really relevant here though.
        jjulius 3y ago
        They are replying directly to a tangential comment that someone else made. It might not be relevant to this overall thread, but it's relevant to this particular comment chain.
        peteradio 3y ago
        Did any of the 3 researchers in question have something that would make them more likely to get seriously ill?
- 1024core 3y ago
  > on June 18th which happens to be a Sunday...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vt102 3y ago
  How can you determine the June 18th date? I'm not finding a reference to it.
  - metafour 3y ago
    Section 3 paragraph 1 states > Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act… It looks like it was signed into law by the President on 3/20/23
  - Neekerer 3y ago
    90 days <<NOTE: Deadline.>> Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall-- (1) declassify any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), including-- (A) activities performed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology with or on behalf of the People's Liberation Army; (B) coronavirus research or other related activities performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the outbreak of COVID-19; and (C) researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who fell ill in autumn 2019, including for any such researcher-- (i) the researcher's name; (ii) the researcher's symptoms; (iii) the date of the onset of the researcher's symptoms; [[Page 137 STAT. 5]] (iv) the researcher's role at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; (v) whether the researcher was involved with or exposed to coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; (vi) whether the researcher visited a hospital while they were ill; and (vii) a description of any other actions taken by the researcher that may suggest they were experiencing a serious illness at the time; and (2) <<NOTE: Reports.>> submit to Congress an unclassified report that contains-- (A) all of the information described under paragraph (1); and (B) only such redactions as the Director determines necessary to protect sources and methods.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  At the moment I’m skeptical of how revelatory the report and documents will be. The act specifically mentions the possibility of redactions to protect sources and methods. We’ll have to wait and see what size of bus the DNI attempts to drive through that hole.
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    This is not going to be revelatory. This is just a stamp on various anonymous "sources" on what we have heard already.
    - bandyaboot 3y ago
      Yeah, that was the wrong word. At the moment I’m skeptical of how much value it will have as far as confirming or refuting this article for the aforementioned reason.
- Accujack 3y ago
  If any exists.
- hedora 3y ago
  Regardless of that, we already know they were doing related biological weapons research, as part of a cooperative program with the US. Funny how congress isn’t focusing on the stuff they have direct jurisdiction over, like refusing to fund similar programs in the future unless there is additional oversight.
  - tim333 3y ago
    That's a bit misleading. The US via EcoHealth was funding virus research for disease prevention. The Wuhan lab may have been doing weapons research but that's a bit unproven.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ricksunny 3y ago
  Assuming DNI chooses to divulge that tidbit formally. Per Biden's published interpretation of that law, they can withhold anything on grounds of 'national security' (note not the narrower 'sources and methods' scope). https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/20/statement-by-the-president-on-s-619-the-covid-19-origin-act-of-2023/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... What could 'national security' be construed as? : https://twitter.com/gdemaneuf/status/1669165325722722306?t=Mi9WSzhw6A9-tlNO1jBgyg&s=19 https://twitter.com/gdemaneuf/status/1669165325722722306?t=M...
  - Apofis 3y ago
    National Security being anything that can be deemed dangerous to the Executive Branch. A very broad stroke these days, that's even used to paint opposing politicians by both parties.
    - SaviorFaire 3y ago
      [flagged]
ethbr0 3y ago
People need to start thinking of politically-impactful truths in terms of probability distributions and outcome possibility spaces, rather than absolutely. If it were a lab leak, there are probably a handful of eyewitnesses. Any information (not leak; was leak) would have serious ramifications to the political systems of the two largest economies in the world (the US and China). What are the chances that we'll ever hear the true story? Which isn't a suggestion that "They're covering {specific thing} up." It's a suggestion that we will never hear evidence of any of the possible outcomes. And beyond that, what would "the truth" in this case change? >> 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 work, our national and global conversations would have been dramatically different. The time has come for a full accounting.” Yes, the national and global conversations would have been substantially worse and less effective. Once the cat's out of the bag with a global pandemic, any breath blaming its origin is wasted. Can you imagine how many scarce resources would have been mispent if SARS-CoV-2 had begun with worldwide knowledge that China was responsible?
- lenkite 3y ago
  > Can you imagine how many scarce resources would have been mispent if SARS-CoV-2 had begun with worldwide knowledge that China was responsible? Well. Dr Fauci was the guy who gave the money to this institute for gain-of-function experiments which would not be tolerated in the US. (Get the dirty, dangerous work done somewhere else where people can ideally die without causing a fuss). "Grant money for the controversial experiment came from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci. The award to EcoHealth Alliance, a research organization which studies the spread of viruses from animals to humans, included subawards to Wuhan Institute of Virology and East China Normal University."
- SomeRndName11 3y ago
  [flagged]
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
wsatb 3y ago
All you need to do is take a quick look at one of the author's other stories[1] and your skepticism will grow further. [1] https://substack.com/@shellenberger https://substack.com/@shellenberger
- ajross 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mistermann 3y ago
    It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the writing form that a lot of mainstream news articles take (advantage of?). I also am not a fan of it, but I must confess I do enjoy seeing it used in the other direction.
    - jasonlotito 3y ago
      Yep. I aw that. But then I rely on the trustworthiness of the authors, and when I know for a fact at least one of them has been caught literally making up lies that, when uncovered, literally disprove the narrative they were pushing, it really destroys all credibility.
      - Gud 3y ago
        He was not “caught literally making up lies”. There was an error in his reporting. Perhaps he lied, perhaps he made a mistake. Please don’t turn to hyperbole. Or at least show me the evidence for his lies(not errors, which are not the same thing. Lies require an intent to misconstrue).
        jasonlotito 3y ago
        The report said one thing. He changed it to something else, intentionally. After "being corrected" he did not go back and fix all the assumptions made from that intentional change he made. A typo is a mistake. Intentionally changing what someone wrote/said is a lie. Especially for a journalist. He's a liar. And those defending him are defending a liar.
websap 3y ago
> Just moments ago, an NGO called U.S. Right to Know released heavily-redacted U.S. State Department cables that it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. One July 2020 cable reads, “Initial Outbreak Could Have Been Contained in China if Beijing Had Not Covered It Up.” From - https://substack.com/@shellenberger https://substack.com/@shellenberger
tonetheman 3y ago
[dead]
FormerBandmate 3y ago
The Sunday Times, one of the oldest, most reliable newspapers in the world, says the same thing. It was probably a lab leak https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pa...
- evgen 3y ago
  > The Sunday Times, one of the oldest, most reliable newspapers in the world, (cough cough bullshit cough) The Times is not quite as bad as the Torygraph, but it is a paper that has clearly been run directly to push the political views of Rupert Murdoch for the past three or four decades.
hindsightbias 3y ago
It never ceases to amaze me how conspiricists don’t believe anything the government says, but the instant something is congruent they’ll upvote it like wildfire. It makes me question any aspect of “rationalism”
- dvzk 3y ago
  Yes. I've never seen anyone question the accuracy of the Church Committee's disclosures. People who talk about such things are normally eager to say that the US Congress and the CIA can't be trusted. It's just selective skepticism.
  - harry8 3y ago
    >eager to say that the US Congress and the CIA can't be trusted. This is a truth universally accepted, no? I mean maybe not by some actual, genuine believers in totalitarianism but surely there aren't many of those? Surely? You never trust people with power. You trust a system of checks and balances precisely because of this. You could even found a nation on that and expect continued support of it.
    - dvzk 3y ago
      Sure, but the same people who frequently say this also cite the CIA's declassified MK-ULTRA documents as if they are unimpeachable fact (and not possibly falsehood or strategic disinformation). At the end of the day, the average forum skeptic trusts the CIA more than most normal people do. I think trusting in our system of checks and balances is a reliable way to avoid the infinite regress of Pyrrhonian skepticism, but that's increasingly seen as a libcuck opinion.
      - bbwbsb 3y ago
        The credibility of a disclosure is not merely a function of the disclosing entity. The average forum skeptic 'trusts' the CIA more in that they believe they have a better grasp of the CIA's situation/incentives/etc. than the average person does, and thus a better ability to judge the credibility of particular disclosures. Some may actually be a better judge, some may not. Imagine a manipulative ex telling someone they never loved them. Whether or not they believe it will depend on their mental model of that person, not on how trustworthy they are. Pyrrhonian skepticism is generally proposed as the solution to infinite regress, why do you suppose it would it be a cause? With respect to 'libcuck', I find myself frustrated by the existence of the term because I want submissives to be respected (out of play). I'm sad to hear that your view may have been referred to in such a tasteless way; while I disagree, I do not think your view is unreasonable.
abracadaniel 3y ago
We have samples that pre-date the wuhan outbreak, so they are not among the earliest. Wuhan was only the first identified super spreader location. Here's one such study from Italy that found infections from as early as Sept 2019. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220830/Italian-study-finds-SARS-CoV-2-in-clinical-samples-collected-before-December-2019.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220830/Italian-study-fin... original journal https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122013068 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...
- masswerk 3y ago
  I think, there were similar samples from Barcelona, as well.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  FTA: Our findings should be complemented by high-throughput sequencing to obtain additional sequence information. I don't see this having been done (and HTS isn't exactly a heavy lift these days, even in Italy). Seems likely they did it, didn't confirm these preliminary results, and didn't publish because it's not interesting.
TX81Z 3y ago
[flagged]
luuurker 3y ago
> I don't trust this article at all. That's my reaction every time I see `substack.com` in the URL.
- JeremyNT 3y ago
  I've come to the same conclusion. I wish HN would just ban the whole domain. The signal to noise ratio on substack is abysmal, with these pundits cum journalists fuelling the confirmation biases of their patrons with clickbait.
jasmer 3y ago
[dead]
enkid 3y ago
How would they actually know (unless there was very specific evidence of something like a lab accident associated with it) that these people were actually the first to fall ill and not just very early infections?
erie 3y ago
Elsewhere, there are many sources, 'Nancy Messonnier was an officer of the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), the CDC’s elite team of “disease detectives,” patrolling the world to prevent epidemics from arriving on American soil. “EIS officers serve on the front lines of public health, protecting Americans and the global community,” the CDC claims. When diseases and public health threats emerge, “EIS officers investigate, identify the cause, rapidly implement control measures, and collect evidence to recommend preventive actions.” https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefi... Transcript of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Response Telebriefing Print Press Briefing Transcript Friday, January 17, 2020 https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0117-coronavirus-screening.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0117-coronavirus-sc...
paulwilsondev 3y ago
I also didn't trust the vaccines.
jtode 3y ago
You could have skipped reading entirely; it's conspiracy clickbait. To the puzzle-solving mind, an anomalous clue is the unicorn you spend your whole life chasing. There is a well-known conspiracy community around covid. It follows that this is trying to harvest a couple thousand in revenue by baiting people who are playing with covid conspiracies, by enticing them with the false promise of an anomalous clue. I hope the author is reading these comments and sees me calling him a piece of shit.
- lordloki 3y ago
  Grow up.

by geuis 3y ago

NoGravitas 3y ago

Yeah, reading this to see what the evidence is, it all comes down to "anonymous State Department sources", and some informed speculation from people in the field. I don't actually think an accidental lab leak is all that unlikely, but I'm also not being presented with any evidence for it.

wbsun 3y ago

My sources on the planet Earth say that nowadays this is the way to write news, essays, blogs, podcast videos, and books in order to attract attentions.

letmevoteplease 3y ago

You won't have to wait long for confirmation. The Director of National Intelligence will be required by law to declassify information about the infected researchers on June 18th, including their names, symptoms, date of onset and role at WIV.[1] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/619/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/619...

geuis 3y ago
Hey that's a cool link. I'm kinda embarrassed to say I didn't know you could track bills like this going through Congress. Thanks for the lead.
- nevi-me 3y ago
  I discounted the article, especially the below part because anyone can say they're "100%" certain about something while they're not. > When a source was asked how certain they were that these were the identities of the three WIV scientists who developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in the fall of 2019, we were told, “100%” ... That's until I saw that Act on Congress' website. It'll be interesting to see what information is declassified. If there's proof that the mentioned scientists were first to fall ill, I wonder what the consequences are.
  - throwaway4good 3y ago
    Maybe it will be used as an excuse to cancel the forth-coming Blinken visit to China: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/14/politics/blinken-china-announcement/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/14/politics/blinken-china-an... Blinken to travel to China this weekend as US looks to reset relations after spy balloon incident
    - unsupp0rted 3y ago
      That would look bad diplomatically. It’s one thing to make up an excuse before going. It’s another thing to cancel in the middle and leave. Not sure what would be accomplished by this.
ZoomerCretin 3y ago
>You won't have to wait long for confirmation. Confirmation that they were sick. Not confirmation of what they were sick with.
- Reason077 3y ago
  Given the location, the timing, the symptoms, the severity of the illness (it's unusual for 'flu to put healthy young adults in hospital) I think we can be pretty confident in our guess.
  - wavefunction 3y ago
    My Aunt was killed by the flu. She had a pre-existing unknown heart-condition and despite her healthy lifestyle the flu weakened her heart enough that she needed a heart-transplant in her early 20s. She died at age 27. I tell this story whenever it is possible, to educate people about what the flu is capable of doing, whenever someone says the flu is "no big deal." Statistically, perhaps not. Unless you're the statistic that is.
    - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
      Not really relevant here though.
      - jjulius 3y ago
        They are replying directly to a tangential comment that someone else made. It might not be relevant to this overall thread, but it's relevant to this particular comment chain.
        peteradio 3y ago
        Did any of the 3 researchers in question have something that would make them more likely to get seriously ill?
1024core 3y ago
> on June 18th which happens to be a Sunday...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vt102 3y ago
How can you determine the June 18th date? I'm not finding a reference to it.
- metafour 3y ago
  Section 3 paragraph 1 states > Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act… It looks like it was signed into law by the President on 3/20/23
- Neekerer 3y ago
  90 days <<NOTE: Deadline.>> Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall-- (1) declassify any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), including-- (A) activities performed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology with or on behalf of the People's Liberation Army; (B) coronavirus research or other related activities performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the outbreak of COVID-19; and (C) researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who fell ill in autumn 2019, including for any such researcher-- (i) the researcher's name; (ii) the researcher's symptoms; (iii) the date of the onset of the researcher's symptoms; [[Page 137 STAT. 5]] (iv) the researcher's role at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; (v) whether the researcher was involved with or exposed to coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; (vi) whether the researcher visited a hospital while they were ill; and (vii) a description of any other actions taken by the researcher that may suggest they were experiencing a serious illness at the time; and (2) <<NOTE: Reports.>> submit to Congress an unclassified report that contains-- (A) all of the information described under paragraph (1); and (B) only such redactions as the Director determines necessary to protect sources and methods.
bandyaboot 3y ago
At the moment I’m skeptical of how revelatory the report and documents will be. The act specifically mentions the possibility of redactions to protect sources and methods. We’ll have to wait and see what size of bus the DNI attempts to drive through that hole.
- j16sdiz 3y ago
  This is not going to be revelatory. This is just a stamp on various anonymous "sources" on what we have heard already.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    Yeah, that was the wrong word. At the moment I’m skeptical of how much value it will have as far as confirming or refuting this article for the aforementioned reason.
Accujack 3y ago
If any exists.
hedora 3y ago
Regardless of that, we already know they were doing related biological weapons research, as part of a cooperative program with the US. Funny how congress isn’t focusing on the stuff they have direct jurisdiction over, like refusing to fund similar programs in the future unless there is additional oversight.
- tim333 3y ago
  That's a bit misleading. The US via EcoHealth was funding virus research for disease prevention. The Wuhan lab may have been doing weapons research but that's a bit unproven.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ricksunny 3y ago
Assuming DNI chooses to divulge that tidbit formally. Per Biden's published interpretation of that law, they can withhold anything on grounds of 'national security' (note not the narrower 'sources and methods' scope). https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/20/statement-by-the-president-on-s-619-the-covid-19-origin-act-of-2023/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... What could 'national security' be construed as? : https://twitter.com/gdemaneuf/status/1669165325722722306?t=Mi9WSzhw6A9-tlNO1jBgyg&s=19 https://twitter.com/gdemaneuf/status/1669165325722722306?t=M...
- Apofis 3y ago
  National Security being anything that can be deemed dangerous to the Executive Branch. A very broad stroke these days, that's even used to paint opposing politicians by both parties.
  - SaviorFaire 3y ago
    [flagged]

ethbr0 3y ago

People need to start thinking of politically-impactful truths in terms of probability distributions and outcome possibility spaces, rather than absolutely. If it were a lab leak, there are probably a handful of eyewitnesses. Any information (not leak; was leak) would have serious ramifications to the political systems of the two largest economies in the world (the US and China). What are the chances that we'll ever hear the true story? Which isn't a suggestion that "They're covering {specific thing} up." It's a suggestion that we will never hear evidence of any of the possible outcomes. And beyond that, what would "the truth" in this case change? >> 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 work, our national and global conversations would have been dramatically different. The time has come for a full accounting.” Yes, the national and global conversations would have been substantially worse and less effective. Once the cat's out of the bag with a global pandemic, any breath blaming its origin is wasted. Can you imagine how many scarce resources would have been mispent if SARS-CoV-2 had begun with worldwide knowledge that China was responsible?

lenkite 3y ago
> Can you imagine how many scarce resources would have been mispent if SARS-CoV-2 had begun with worldwide knowledge that China was responsible? Well. Dr Fauci was the guy who gave the money to this institute for gain-of-function experiments which would not be tolerated in the US. (Get the dirty, dangerous work done somewhere else where people can ideally die without causing a fuss). "Grant money for the controversial experiment came from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci. The award to EcoHealth Alliance, a research organization which studies the spread of viruses from animals to humans, included subawards to Wuhan Institute of Virology and East China Normal University."
SomeRndName11 3y ago
[flagged]
cscurmudgeon 3y ago

wsatb 3y ago

All you need to do is take a quick look at one of the author's other stories[1] and your skepticism will grow further. [1] https://substack.com/@shellenberger https://substack.com/@shellenberger

ajross 3y ago
[flagged]
- mistermann 3y ago
  It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the writing form that a lot of mainstream news articles take (advantage of?). I also am not a fan of it, but I must confess I do enjoy seeing it used in the other direction.
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    Yep. I aw that. But then I rely on the trustworthiness of the authors, and when I know for a fact at least one of them has been caught literally making up lies that, when uncovered, literally disprove the narrative they were pushing, it really destroys all credibility.
    - Gud 3y ago
      He was not “caught literally making up lies”. There was an error in his reporting. Perhaps he lied, perhaps he made a mistake. Please don’t turn to hyperbole. Or at least show me the evidence for his lies(not errors, which are not the same thing. Lies require an intent to misconstrue).
      - jasonlotito 3y ago
        The report said one thing. He changed it to something else, intentionally. After "being corrected" he did not go back and fix all the assumptions made from that intentional change he made. A typo is a mistake. Intentionally changing what someone wrote/said is a lie. Especially for a journalist. He's a liar. And those defending him are defending a liar.

websap 3y ago

> Just moments ago, an NGO called U.S. Right to Know released heavily-redacted U.S. State Department cables that it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. One July 2020 cable reads, “Initial Outbreak Could Have Been Contained in China if Beijing Had Not Covered It Up.” From - https://substack.com/@shellenberger https://substack.com/@shellenberger

tonetheman 3y ago

[dead]

FormerBandmate 3y ago

The Sunday Times, one of the oldest, most reliable newspapers in the world, says the same thing. It was probably a lab leak https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pa...

evgen 3y ago
> The Sunday Times, one of the oldest, most reliable newspapers in the world, (cough cough bullshit cough) The Times is not quite as bad as the Torygraph, but it is a paper that has clearly been run directly to push the political views of Rupert Murdoch for the past three or four decades.

hindsightbias 3y ago

It never ceases to amaze me how conspiricists don’t believe anything the government says, but the instant something is congruent they’ll upvote it like wildfire. It makes me question any aspect of “rationalism”

dvzk 3y ago
Yes. I've never seen anyone question the accuracy of the Church Committee's disclosures. People who talk about such things are normally eager to say that the US Congress and the CIA can't be trusted. It's just selective skepticism.
- harry8 3y ago
  >eager to say that the US Congress and the CIA can't be trusted. This is a truth universally accepted, no? I mean maybe not by some actual, genuine believers in totalitarianism but surely there aren't many of those? Surely? You never trust people with power. You trust a system of checks and balances precisely because of this. You could even found a nation on that and expect continued support of it.
  - dvzk 3y ago
    Sure, but the same people who frequently say this also cite the CIA's declassified MK-ULTRA documents as if they are unimpeachable fact (and not possibly falsehood or strategic disinformation). At the end of the day, the average forum skeptic trusts the CIA more than most normal people do. I think trusting in our system of checks and balances is a reliable way to avoid the infinite regress of Pyrrhonian skepticism, but that's increasingly seen as a libcuck opinion.
    - bbwbsb 3y ago
      The credibility of a disclosure is not merely a function of the disclosing entity. The average forum skeptic 'trusts' the CIA more in that they believe they have a better grasp of the CIA's situation/incentives/etc. than the average person does, and thus a better ability to judge the credibility of particular disclosures. Some may actually be a better judge, some may not. Imagine a manipulative ex telling someone they never loved them. Whether or not they believe it will depend on their mental model of that person, not on how trustworthy they are. Pyrrhonian skepticism is generally proposed as the solution to infinite regress, why do you suppose it would it be a cause? With respect to 'libcuck', I find myself frustrated by the existence of the term because I want submissives to be respected (out of play). I'm sad to hear that your view may have been referred to in such a tasteless way; while I disagree, I do not think your view is unreasonable.

abracadaniel 3y ago

We have samples that pre-date the wuhan outbreak, so they are not among the earliest. Wuhan was only the first identified super spreader location. Here's one such study from Italy that found infections from as early as Sept 2019. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220830/Italian-study-finds-SARS-CoV-2-in-clinical-samples-collected-before-December-2019.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220830/Italian-study-fin... original journal https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122013068 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...

masswerk 3y ago
I think, there were similar samples from Barcelona, as well.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwawaymaths 3y ago
FTA: Our findings should be complemented by high-throughput sequencing to obtain additional sequence information. I don't see this having been done (and HTS isn't exactly a heavy lift these days, even in Italy). Seems likely they did it, didn't confirm these preliminary results, and didn't publish because it's not interesting.

TX81Z 3y ago

[flagged]

luuurker 3y ago

> I don't trust this article at all. That's my reaction every time I see `substack.com` in the URL.

JeremyNT 3y ago
I've come to the same conclusion. I wish HN would just ban the whole domain. The signal to noise ratio on substack is abysmal, with these pundits cum journalists fuelling the confirmation biases of their patrons with clickbait.

jasmer 3y ago

[dead]

enkid 3y ago

How would they actually know (unless there was very specific evidence of something like a lab accident associated with it) that these people were actually the first to fall ill and not just very early infections?

erie 3y ago

Elsewhere, there are many sources, 'Nancy Messonnier was an officer of the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), the CDC’s elite team of “disease detectives,” patrolling the world to prevent epidemics from arriving on American soil. “EIS officers serve on the front lines of public health, protecting Americans and the global community,” the CDC claims. When diseases and public health threats emerge, “EIS officers investigate, identify the cause, rapidly implement control measures, and collect evidence to recommend preventive actions.” https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefi... Transcript of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Response Telebriefing Print Press Briefing Transcript Friday, January 17, 2020 https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0117-coronavirus-screening.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0117-coronavirus-sc...

paulwilsondev 3y ago

I also didn't trust the vaccines.

jtode 3y ago

You could have skipped reading entirely; it's conspiracy clickbait. To the puzzle-solving mind, an anomalous clue is the unicorn you spend your whole life chasing. There is a well-known conspiracy community around covid. It follows that this is trying to harvest a couple thousand in revenue by baiting people who are playing with covid conspiracies, by enticing them with the false promise of an anomalous clue. I hope the author is reading these comments and sees me calling him a piece of shit.

lordloki 3y ago
Grow up.