4 ms·

Select Subcommittee: CIA Paid Analysts for Virus Origin Statements

cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
This is from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. "New testimony from a highly credible whistleblower alleges @CIA rewarded six analysts with significant financial incentives to change their Covid-19 origin conclusion from a lab leak to zoonosis."
- bediger4000 3y ago
  House or Senate? Given the House Member Marjorie Taylor Greene is currently advocating secession, I'm not sure we can take this as anything more than culture war chaff.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Greene is one of sixteen members on said Subcommittee [1]. Not a good look. But not disqualifying. (It is qualifying of their findings, given her Republican peers see no issue with her being there.) [1] https://oversight.house.gov/subcommittee/select-subcommittee-on-the-coronavirus-pandemic/ https://oversight.house.gov/subcommittee/select-subcommittee...
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Has anyone come down to why we were so against the lab-leak hypothesis? From a messaging perspective, I could see many of the nutters—who rejected vaccines and, in extreme cases, the existence of Covid in our timeline—responding favourably to a potential national security concern.
- cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
  "...why we were so against the lab leak hypothesis?" Well, a former executive with Ecoheath Alliance claims they are a CIA front company that funded the lab work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  - cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
    Here's his book's amazon page: [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Truth-about-Wuhan-Uncovered-Biggest/dp/1510773886/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1694537508&refinements=p_27%3ADr.+Andrew+G.+Huff&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Dr.+Andrew+G.+Huff https://www.amazon.com/Truth-about-Wuhan-Uncovered-Biggest/d...
- Jayschwa 3y ago
  I can understand why government scientists wouldn't want their name attached if it was discovered that they funded research on the escaped virus. It's less obvious to me why the CIA would care though. Just trying to avoid general blame attributed to the USA?
  - cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
    It has been alleged that the CIA was one of the funding agencies in question.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  >Has anyone come down to why we were so against the lab-leak hypothesis? Because the reality is that there just isn't that much evidence either way, because China was never going to let any real investigation happen, because it would always be a lose lose for them. "Comes from nature" is also sort of the DEFAULT and expected source, because that's what we are familiar with, what we prepare for, what we have experienced in the past, and what we expect to see in the future. The onus for most people in the area of virology was on those who claimed it came from the lab. Add to that, the lab leak theory was always touted with EXTREME certainty despite a lack of evidence (all evidence was circumstantial at best), and most people were skeptical. It also came from very untrustworthy sources for most people, including things like other, definite conspiracy theories. If it DID come from the Wuhan lab, it feels more like "A stopped clock" effect than people actually having any evidence. I'm still not convinced either way. I saw plenty of virologists claim that the "evidence" being touted as proof of artificial origin could plausibly originate naturally. If it was a jury trial, I could not convict.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > still not convinced either way I’m not either. But people get stuff wrong all the time. I fail to see how a lab-leak assumption was deemed dangerous.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      > I fail to see how a lab-leak assumption was deemed dangerous. I did not say it was. Some said it was "dangerous" in that, we had no good evidence either way, so drawing a conclusion wasn't a good idea, and that is especially true if the outcome of that conclusion was to simply take an aggressive stance towards china and ignore everything else, which seemed to be the desired outcome. In the end, it really doesn't matter where COVID came from, because there WILL be future natural pandemics, and our response to COVID is what was the problem. Nobody who gave the "china did it" theory gave credible or useful information about WHY WE SHOULD CARE, other than bad mouthing Dr. Fauci and saying that we should stop gain of function research, which did start a useful conversation in that sphere of science, but the end result remains the same: We cannot force China to fix the problem of shitty labs with shitty safety practices if they don't care to fix it on their own, because they are a sovereign nation.
- trafficante 3y ago
  Largely because, as others have said, the best case scenario is that the US at least partially funded the lab’s research. Worst case scenario, it was made in a lab but not a Chinese one. I don’t personally subscribe to this belief due to lack of any direct evidence - but in this case, it’s pretty obvious why the narrative would want to stay very far away from a lab origin story.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Taking the article as truth, 7 of the 7 CIA people were unconvinced it was a lab leak. 6 of the 7 were willing to say "low confidence" and 1 out of 7 wasn't even willing to say that. They aren't against it per-say; they just aren't for it and that's a difference that has been lost with polarized headlines.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  It's a problem across society, not unique to the CIA. Here's an intriguing theory: we live in what can be called a "managerial regime" [1]. This system of governance relies for its control and credibility not on democratic mandate but rather people's belief in its competence and expertise. Although there may be elections in this system, they have relatively little effect because decisions are actually made outside the realm of elected politicians. Government agencies are a part of this system, as are universities, large parts of the media, many NGOs and so on. These people are effectively the ruling class and have shared class interests. These shared interests supersede their job descriptions: given a choice between being doing their job and being a "class traitor", or lying and remaining loyal, they almost always pick the latter. A major element of shared class interest is the perception that highly trained/qualified people are both competent and honest by default. Anything that challenges this perception is a threat to their power and prestige, and thus must be undermined. This is why "fact checking" (a part of the managerial regime) is invariably so disinterested in real dispute resolution, deciding instead that whatever credentialed people at managerial institutions say is automatically true. If that were not the case, then the journalists pretending to check facts would become class traitors by fuelling claims of credentialed incompetence/dishonesty. The origins of COVID point strongly towards gross credentialed incompetence and dishonesty not only by the scientists actually doing the work, but also the US government for funding it even though it was illegal at the time, and western scientists in general for engaging in a ham-fisted conspiracy to cover up that possibility. If the CIA (or any other powerful body) were to institutionally disagree with the "expert" virologists, after they very quickly decided on the wet market origin theory, then this would not merely be a disagreement with the wet market theory but with the entire western system of credentialing, competence, knowledge and institutional management. It would directly challenge the widely held belief that scientists are inherently honest, which in turn would undermine the continual devolution of power away from politicians and towards the managerial class. In turn that would make the entire CIA class traitors, which would be intolerable, and thus the narrative must be aligned. The same happened of course with other institutions like the New York Times, which fired its veteran reporter digging into the possibility of a lab leak and then replaced him with a woman who immediately announced that the lab leak theory was "racist". [1] https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  Because it's a distractive technique and divisive when human survival requires cooperation. Not at all complicated if you understand the intersection of society and harm reduction.
cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
BTW, this is probably a better link, but I only just found it now: [0]. There's also an article at the NY Post: [1] [0]: https://oversight.house.gov/release/testimony-from-cia-whistleblower-alleges-new-information-on-covid-19-origins/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/testimony-from-cia-whist... [1]: https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/cia-tried-to-pay-off-analysts-to-bury-covid-lab-leak-findings-whistleblower/ https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/cia-tried-to-pay-off-analysts-...

This is from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. "New testimony from a highly credible whistleblower alleges @CIA rewarded six analysts with significant financial incentives to change their Covid-19 origin conclusion from a lab leak to zoonosis."

bediger4000 3y ago
House or Senate? Given the House Member Marjorie Taylor Greene is currently advocating secession, I'm not sure we can take this as anything more than culture war chaff.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Greene is one of sixteen members on said Subcommittee [1]. Not a good look. But not disqualifying. (It is qualifying of their findings, given her Republican peers see no issue with her being there.) [1] https://oversight.house.gov/subcommittee/select-subcommittee-on-the-coronavirus-pandemic/ https://oversight.house.gov/subcommittee/select-subcommittee...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Has anyone come down to why we were so against the lab-leak hypothesis? From a messaging perspective, I could see many of the nutters—who rejected vaccines and, in extreme cases, the existence of Covid in our timeline—responding favourably to a potential national security concern.

cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
"...why we were so against the lab leak hypothesis?" Well, a former executive with Ecoheath Alliance claims they are a CIA front company that funded the lab work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
  Here's his book's amazon page: [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Truth-about-Wuhan-Uncovered-Biggest/dp/1510773886/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1694537508&refinements=p_27%3ADr.+Andrew+G.+Huff&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Dr.+Andrew+G.+Huff https://www.amazon.com/Truth-about-Wuhan-Uncovered-Biggest/d...
Jayschwa 3y ago
I can understand why government scientists wouldn't want their name attached if it was discovered that they funded research on the escaped virus. It's less obvious to me why the CIA would care though. Just trying to avoid general blame attributed to the USA?
- cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
  It has been alleged that the CIA was one of the funding agencies in question.
mrguyorama 3y ago
>Has anyone come down to why we were so against the lab-leak hypothesis? Because the reality is that there just isn't that much evidence either way, because China was never going to let any real investigation happen, because it would always be a lose lose for them. "Comes from nature" is also sort of the DEFAULT and expected source, because that's what we are familiar with, what we prepare for, what we have experienced in the past, and what we expect to see in the future. The onus for most people in the area of virology was on those who claimed it came from the lab. Add to that, the lab leak theory was always touted with EXTREME certainty despite a lack of evidence (all evidence was circumstantial at best), and most people were skeptical. It also came from very untrustworthy sources for most people, including things like other, definite conspiracy theories. If it DID come from the Wuhan lab, it feels more like "A stopped clock" effect than people actually having any evidence. I'm still not convinced either way. I saw plenty of virologists claim that the "evidence" being touted as proof of artificial origin could plausibly originate naturally. If it was a jury trial, I could not convict.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > still not convinced either way I’m not either. But people get stuff wrong all the time. I fail to see how a lab-leak assumption was deemed dangerous.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    > I fail to see how a lab-leak assumption was deemed dangerous. I did not say it was. Some said it was "dangerous" in that, we had no good evidence either way, so drawing a conclusion wasn't a good idea, and that is especially true if the outcome of that conclusion was to simply take an aggressive stance towards china and ignore everything else, which seemed to be the desired outcome. In the end, it really doesn't matter where COVID came from, because there WILL be future natural pandemics, and our response to COVID is what was the problem. Nobody who gave the "china did it" theory gave credible or useful information about WHY WE SHOULD CARE, other than bad mouthing Dr. Fauci and saying that we should stop gain of function research, which did start a useful conversation in that sphere of science, but the end result remains the same: We cannot force China to fix the problem of shitty labs with shitty safety practices if they don't care to fix it on their own, because they are a sovereign nation.
trafficante 3y ago
Largely because, as others have said, the best case scenario is that the US at least partially funded the lab’s research. Worst case scenario, it was made in a lab but not a Chinese one. I don’t personally subscribe to this belief due to lack of any direct evidence - but in this case, it’s pretty obvious why the narrative would want to stay very far away from a lab origin story.
lesuorac 3y ago
Taking the article as truth, 7 of the 7 CIA people were unconvinced it was a lab leak. 6 of the 7 were willing to say "low confidence" and 1 out of 7 wasn't even willing to say that. They aren't against it per-say; they just aren't for it and that's a difference that has been lost with polarized headlines.
nvm0n2 3y ago
It's a problem across society, not unique to the CIA. Here's an intriguing theory: we live in what can be called a "managerial regime" [1]. This system of governance relies for its control and credibility not on democratic mandate but rather people's belief in its competence and expertise. Although there may be elections in this system, they have relatively little effect because decisions are actually made outside the realm of elected politicians. Government agencies are a part of this system, as are universities, large parts of the media, many NGOs and so on. These people are effectively the ruling class and have shared class interests. These shared interests supersede their job descriptions: given a choice between being doing their job and being a "class traitor", or lying and remaining loyal, they almost always pick the latter. A major element of shared class interest is the perception that highly trained/qualified people are both competent and honest by default. Anything that challenges this perception is a threat to their power and prestige, and thus must be undermined. This is why "fact checking" (a part of the managerial regime) is invariably so disinterested in real dispute resolution, deciding instead that whatever credentialed people at managerial institutions say is automatically true. If that were not the case, then the journalists pretending to check facts would become class traitors by fuelling claims of credentialed incompetence/dishonesty. The origins of COVID point strongly towards gross credentialed incompetence and dishonesty not only by the scientists actually doing the work, but also the US government for funding it even though it was illegal at the time, and western scientists in general for engaging in a ham-fisted conspiracy to cover up that possibility. If the CIA (or any other powerful body) were to institutionally disagree with the "expert" virologists, after they very quickly decided on the wet market origin theory, then this would not merely be a disagreement with the wet market theory but with the entire western system of credentialing, competence, knowledge and institutional management. It would directly challenge the widely held belief that scientists are inherently honest, which in turn would undermine the continual devolution of power away from politicians and towards the managerial class. In turn that would make the entire CIA class traitors, which would be intolerable, and thus the narrative must be aligned. The same happened of course with other institutions like the New York Times, which fired its veteran reporter digging into the possibility of a lab leak and then replaced him with a woman who immediately announced that the lab leak theory was "racist". [1] https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence
cyanydeez 3y ago
Because it's a distractive technique and divisive when human survival requires cooperation. Not at all complicated if you understand the intersection of society and harm reduction.

cheaprentalyeti 3y ago

BTW, this is probably a better link, but I only just found it now: [0]. There's also an article at the NY Post: [1] [0]: https://oversight.house.gov/release/testimony-from-cia-whistleblower-alleges-new-information-on-covid-19-origins/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/testimony-from-cia-whist... [1]: https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/cia-tried-to-pay-off-analysts-to-bury-covid-lab-leak-findings-whistleblower/ https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/cia-tried-to-pay-off-analysts-...