The following is a news analysis.
I've been drawing attention to the increasingly aggressive efforts by political and corporate interests to control the information you get on the new and online. I have often spoken of disingenuous "fact checking" efforts conducted by conflicted third parties who are actually trying to shape public opinion and control the information the public can access.
One chilling example comes in the form of Facebook's fake "science fact checks." The social media company has improperly been censoring and flagging material as "false."
A recent example is a popular documentary by Epoch Times about the possible link between Covid-19 and a research lab in Wuhan, China.
The documentary formed no conclusions and the theories it discussed had not been disproven.
However, Facebook intervened to punish me and others who dared to share this factually accurate documentary on Facebook. Without warning, the social media company notified us that our pages were being throttled or shown to fewer people because we had shared an unspecified link. Facebook also said that people visiting our pages would be told we share fake news.
In trying to find out what the problematic link was, it led to the Epoch Times documentary.
But one glaring problem with the Facebook fact check was obvious. It flagged as "false" a conclusion that was never made in the documentary: that the virus "was the result of human engineering."
So who connected to Facebook would want to stop people from seeing the documentary, by using a false pretense?
Facebook offers no place for users to challenge Facebook's false science fact checks. But clicking the additional information on this particular fact check led to an unsigned article at a website called "healthfeedback.org."
Three more significant problems quickly become apparent.
First, the article did not fact check the Epoch Times documentary that it supposedly debunked. The article was written before the documentary was published.
Second, nothing in the fact check says claims that the article examined were "false."
Third, the article and its chief "reviewer" listed at the bottom, Danielle Anderson, try to convince readers that coronavirus could not have possibly come from the Wuhan lab-- and that the thought that the virus is not of "natural origin" is a "conspiracy theory" that should not be considered or expressed-- but Anderson is a U.S. scientist who says she works at the lab.
Meantime, the U.S. government confirmed it is investigating the possibility that the virus came from the Wuhan lab, despite the fake Facebook fact check that attempts to quell any such discussion.
When self-appointed fact-checkers intervene to try to stop people from accessing certain information, or to bully and controversialize those who report and read facts that are off the narrative powerful interests are trying to forward, it should be concerning to all.
It should make you wonder: who wants us to think this, why do they not want us to hear the information and think for ourselves-- and why?
Giovanni A. Roverso says
This is a key matter that really should not be stifled so blindly, in my opinion.
For example, currently here are only a couple studies that look at the origin of the new virus and Scientists like Fauci have not been good at delving into the reasoning that excludes the possibility of evolving it in a petri dish with human cells to make up the 50-year natural evolved difference compared to the sample of bat virus we know the famous WIV lab has.
What we need is for scientists to work harder with journalists to explain what and what is not in the realm of possibility.
A recent Nat Geo article (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/03/how-coronavirus-mutations-can-track-its-spread-and-disprove-conspiracies/) interviewing Fauci mentions a study which claims evidence of the virus evolving in a live host to interface with the ACE2 receptor and not in a petri dish, but it's not apparent to the untrained eye in the linked research.
* This is explained somewhere in the meanders of this research. This information needs to be discussed a lot more considering fake news crusades are going on about the possibility of lab-assisted adaptations to human cell receptors. https://academic.oup.com/glycob/article/28/7/443/4951691
One linked study (https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/7/e00127-20) concludes:
Have we heard of this in the media? Almost not at all.
And I bet
Giovanni A. Roverso says
Sorry, I didn't finish my comment.
Anyway, the mainstream is understandably touchy, but limiting people's freedom of inquiry (speech) should not be done so dismissively. People need thoroughly explained science during the Trump administration more than ever.
Its good to not get carried away with an idea, but censoring people's ability to hypothesize is not cool.
I'd be ok with making a notice on content that says SARS-CoV-02 passed through a lab without providing proof, but not hypothesizing.
You ask "Who" would want us to think this way? Well "Who" owns Facebook? "Who" owns Google/YouTube? "Who" owns the NYT? "Who" controls CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC? "Who" owns Hollywood, Porn? "Who" controls the FBI as their personal law enforcement to arrest their enemies? You know who but you're either afraid to name the source or you're controlled opposition. You're actually both.
I’ll take “Lizard People” for 800, Alex.
Donald Duck says
It's not just them as a whole, its crypto sabbateans and their associates in freemasonry and the 13 illuminati bloodlines. They are using deception on a grand scale because they serve the lord of deception.
Jonnie Blount says
Facebook is clearly biased and everyone knows it!! They have their own agenda!!!
Suzanne Pomeranz says
Please note this article from 2015: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
Scroll down to the bottom of the article for the heading "Further Reading" for updated information. Of course, I wonder how much of the "updated information" has been edited to line up with the "fake fact checkers" and their lies. Just my 2 cents..........
Also, this "author correction" published just now on 22 May 2020: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0924-2
Also - these two Chinese scientists who participated in this research, both affiliated with the Wuhan lab and listed amongst the authors of the report linked above.
Xing-Yi Ge - Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China
Zhengli-Li Shi - Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China
Also - there was evidence (perhaps not expunged?) that the Chinese scientists took some of the material from the lab in North Carolina back to Wuhan for further study. In and of itself, this is not a problem. But there was also published evidence (and I apologize, but I did not retain the link to that information) that they then requested and received material (possibly HIV) from a lab in Australia, and used it to further work with the virus - perhaps separately or perhaps together? That part is not clear.
I've read so much technical material over the past few months that my head spins just thinking about it. But this is all I can share right now. I think someone else needs to take this up and do the more intense research.
Randy Rose says
First of all anyone that goes to social media to get information get’s what they deserve! There are two different sides on social media one for the Democrats and one for the Republicans. This social media shit is putting Americans against one another! The best thing to do is leave baby pics and vacation pics on social media and start another forum for politics and conspiracy theories! Make up your own stories on SOCIAL MEDIA leave political policy and conspiracy theories off!