This was the original article which started all the rage in the old deleted thread. Please note the date as this was very early on. Also note the question mark in the subject line.
I am not responsible for any triggering this may cause!
I think I have been clear, Peter. My question was about what was said, not about the source. Please look up if it was about an "engineered" virus, a "bioweapon" even, or simply about a lab accident surrounding a research project. Big difference.
EDIT: just saw your post about Ron's question. I am not sure if I even consciously noticed Ron's question originally. My question was about the internet article(s). I am still waiting for an answer.
Sorry Al, not clear enough for me. I do not follow you. You are still waiting for an answer to what question? Did I write something controversial about the Wuhan Lab? You are claiming I have some "reflective stance" about media sources. I do not know what you are asking me about.
This was the original article which started all the rage in the old deleted thread. Please note the date as this was very early on. Also note the question mark in the subject line.
I am not responsible for any triggering this may cause!
Sorry Al, not clear enough for me. I do not follow you. You are still waiting for an answer to what question? Did I write something controversial about the Wuhan Lab?
I was asking about the original conspiracy article vs. what the Washington post said. The link just posted answered my question.
Your reflexive stance seems to be to assume that people only care about the source, and that 'right-wing' sources are just the victim if they are not taken seriously. But as it should be clear, it is about the substance of what is said.
Thank you dminches. Did the Washington Post accept that the virus might have originated somewhere other than the Wuhan wet market? You may be right that they did, but I don't recall that. By "mainstream media", I mean the traditional and established TV news networks, cable, and otherwise, and the major national news papers and magazines. I would include the Washington Post among those. Almost all such news sources dismissed the possibility that the virus originated someplace other than the Wuhan wet market, in fact I watched a few cables news anchors dismiss the laboratory theory as outright conspiracy theory. I am not saying it was a man made virus or engineered, nor am I suggesting that it was released on purpose.
Peter, just to be clear, you said "When the mainstream media was not willing to discuss the possibility that the place of origin was a laboratory instead of the wet market." The WaPo, among other publications, were willing to discuss this and did in January. They may not have concluded that it was lab-based but they did do their own investigation. They didn't have to "accept" that it originated elsewhere. But they did discuss it.
The "bioweapon" idea seemed conspiratorial from the beginning. Also, such a virus would make a lousy bioweapon. I can think of much more efficient options.
A simple research lab accident seems so much more plausible.
And for the record I’m not saying I believe this. I do find it interesting though, the Canadian lab situation and her immediate firing. You can read about this on the approved news sites.
Well there was post after post after post how this was from a fake news conspiracy theory website and it can never be believed. There was a long discussion how it can’t be trusted since Tyler Durden is listed as the author of all articles there.
I think we can agree this is a mutation of an existing virus. Whether that mutation occured naturally or aided by man is anyones' guess.
Personaly i love conspiracy theories. I like Freud believe there are no accidents.
The "bioweapon" idea seemed conspiratorial from the beginning. Also, such a virus would make a lousy bioweapon. I can think of much more efficient options.
A simple research lab accident seems so much more plausible.
I am trying to discuss with Al Ron's simple, original question which I quoted above. The question seems to make no inference of malicious intent.
djsina2 is trying to discuss with Al the original ZeroHedge article which also asks a question, though much more controversial. Ron deleted this in the original thread as being too political, controversial, or something.
These are two separate conversations being conflated here. The conflation started when I brought up the notion of biased sources and biased readers, and a divided culture. The bias caused Ron's question to be interpreted as espousing a conspiracy theory. Also for some reason, the mere mention of the "main stream media" is enough to discount the opinion of anyone referring to such a thing.
I apologize for being the possible source of all of this early morning raucous. We should be protecting our ears from such noise to prolong our years of music listening pleasure.
I was asking about the original conspiracy article vs. what the Washington post said. The link just posted answered my question.
Your reflexive stance seems to be to assume that people only care about the source, and that 'right-wing' sources are just the victim if they are not taken seriously. But as it should be clear, it is about the substance of what is said.
I should clarify that I did not mean to imply that the source is the ONLY thing people care about. Sorry if I implied that. What I mean is that seeing the name of the source can lead to the reader forming a bias about the sender because the reader often has a bias about the source himself. This then causes the reader to form a bias about the sender. I find that to be rather ironic and quite problematic if we are really trying to be more informed and care about having a civil discourse.
I think we can agree this is a mutation of an existing virus. Whether that mutation occured naturally or aided by man is anyones' guess.
Personaly i love conspiracy theories. I like Freud believe there are no accidents.
What I mean is that seeing the name of the source can lead to the reader forming a bias about the sender because the reader often has a bias about the source himself. I find that to be rather ironic and quite problematic if we are really trying to be more informed and caring on a civil discourse.
Peter, just to be clear, you said "When the mainstream media was not willing to discuss the possibility that the place of origin was a laboratory instead of the wet market." The WaPo, among other publications, were willing to discuss this and did in January. They may not have concluded that it was lab-based but they did do their own investigation. They didn't have to "accept" that it originated elsewhere. But they did discuss it.
Thank you for correcting my sloppiness. I guess they did accept it as a possibility in the beginning, at least enough to discuss it and to launch a full investigation for themselves. If they concluded that it was not the source, intentional or otherwise, than I guess that is the end of it.
Except now, they seem to question anew what the source is. I wonder what they think of their original investigation and why they are now asking the question again. I guess that is more precisely my point, and I thank you for encouraging me to be more specific.
I guess Ron asked a very insightful question, all those weeks ago, one that still does not seem answered.
In today's Times the Professor in charge UK testing "said that tests ordered from China were able to identify immunity accurately ionly in people who had been severely ill and that Britain was no longer hoping to buy millions of kits off the shelf."
So still a long way to go unfortunately,
