Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Times of Georgia
HomeWorldWhat The New Acceptability Of The Lab Leak Origin Tells Us About...

What The New Acceptability Of The Lab Leak Origin Tells Us About Media Outlets


Have you noticed that a lot
of science
writers have
lately been
saying that
they were
perfectly right
a year
ago to
mock and condemn even considering a lab leak origin for
Coronavirus but that now it’s perfectly proper to admit
that Coronavirus may very well have come from a lab? It
seems to be largely a question of fashion. One doesn’t
wear the wrong outfit too early in the season, or explore
the wrong epidemiological idea when the White House is
claimed by one Party or the other.

In March 2020, I blogged
about how articles denouncing the possibility that the
Coronavirus pandemic originated with a leak from a
bioweapons lab sometimes actually admitted to basic facts
that made such an origin seem likely. The first reported
outbreak was extremely close to one of the few places on
earth actively experimenting with weaponizing Coronavirus,
but a huge distance from the supposed source in bats. Not
only had various labs had leaks before, but scientists had
recently warned of the danger of leaks from the lab in
Wuhan.

There was a theory about a seafood market, and
the fact that this theory fell apart seems not to have
entered the public consciousness to the same extent as the
false fact that it supposedly disproved the lab leak
theory.

I was by March 2020 very used to the stopped
clock problem. Just as even a stopped clock is right twice a
day, a bunch of Trump-worshipping China-haters could be
right about the origin of the pandemic. Certainly their
ravings provided absolutely zero evidence against their
claims happening to be correct — just as Trump being
depicted as anti-NATO was not actually a reason for me to
start loving NATO, and just as the bipartisan consensus that
China was a military threat was not an actual reason for me
to fear a military costing 14% of what is spent on the
militaries of the United States and its allies and weapons
customers.

I did not think the lab leak possibility
risked providing any good reason to actually hate China. We
knew that Anthony
Fauci
and the U.S.
government
invested in the Wuhan lab. If the insanely
unjustifiable risks taken by that lab were an excuse to hate
anything, the objects of that hatred couldn’t be limited
to China. And if China is a military threat, why fund its
bioweapons research?

I was also very used to
censorship surrounding the whole topic of bioweapons.
You’re not supposed to talk about the overwhelming
evidence that the spread of Lyme
disease was thanks to a U.S. bioweapons lab, or the
likelihood that the U.S. government’s view is correct that
the 2001 Anthrax
attacks originated with material from a U.S. bioweapons lab.
So, I didn’t take condemnations of even considering the
lab-leak theory for Coronavirus as meriting compliance. If
anything, the stigma being attached to the lab leak theory
made me suspect it was right, or at least that bioweapons
makers wanted to hide the fact that a lab leak was quite
plausible. In my view the plausibility of a lab leak, even
if never proven, was a new good reason to shut down all the
world’s bioweapons labs.

I was pleased to see Sam
Husseini
and a very few others pursue the question with
open minds. Corporate media outlets did no such thing. Just
as you can’t oppose a looming war or step outside the
prescribed limits of debate on numerous topics, you could
not for a year or more say certain things about Coronavirus
in U.S. corporate media. Now writers tell us that the
impossibility of a lab origin was their “knee jerk
reaction.” But, first of all, why should a knee-jerk
reaction count for anything? And, second of all, group think
doesn’t really depend on somebody’s knee-jerk reaction
even if that memory is accurate. It depends on editors
enforcing prohibitions.

Now writers tell us that they
chose to believe scientists rather than Trumpsters. But the
reality was also that they chose to believe the CIA and
related agencies rather than Trumpsters — the scientific
dubiousness of placing faith in the statements of
professional liars notwithstanding. The reality is also that
they chose to obey decrees published in scientificisticish
publications without even questioning the motivations of the
authors.

A super serious “letter
published by The Lancet said, “We stand together to
strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that
COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” Not to disprove,
not to disagree with, not to offer evidence against, but to
“condemn” — and not merely to condemn, but to
stigmatize as evil and irrational “conspiracy theories.”
But the organizer of that letter, Peter
Daszak
had funded, at the Wuhan lab, just the research
that could have resulted in the pandemic. This massive
conflict of interest was no problem at all for The
Lancet
, or major media outlets. The Lancet even
put Daszak on a commission to study the origin question, as
did the World Health Organization.

I don’t know
where the pandemic came from any more than I know who shot
John F. Kennedy, but I do know that you wouldn’t have put
Allen Dulles on a commission to study Kennedy if even
appearing to care about the truth had been a top priority,
and I know that Daszak investigating himself and finding
himself absolutely blameless is a cause for suspicion, not
credulity.

What difference does it make where this
pandemic came from? Well, if it came from the tiny remnants
of wild nature left on earth, a possible solution might be
to cease destruction and deforestation, perhaps even abolish
livestock and restore huge areas of land to the wild. But
another possible solution, and one guaranteed to be pursued
with fervor in the absence of massive pushback, would be to
research, investigate, experiment — in other words, invest
still more in weapons labs to fend off further assaults on
innocent little humanity.

If, on the other hand, the
origin is proven to be a weapons lab — and you could make
this argument based on just the possibility that it is a
weapons lab — then a solution would be to shut the damn
things down. The incredible diversion of resources into
militarism is a leading cause of environmental destruction,
the reason for the risk of nuclear apocalypse, and quite
possibly the reason not just for poor investment in medical
preparedness but also directly for the disease that has
ravaged the globe during this past year. There might be
increased basis for questioning
the madness of militarism
.

Regardless of what, if
anything, we manage to learn further about the origin of the
Coronavirus pandemic, we do know that questioning corporate
media is in order. If “objective” reporting on matters
of “science” is basically subject to fashion trends, how
much faith should you put in assertions about economics or
diplomacy? Of course the media may instruct you not to think
something that also happens to be completely false. But if I
were you I’d keep my eyes peeled for over-eager dictates
on what not to think. Often those will tell you exactly what
you might want to look into.

Originally
published here
by David
Swanson.

David Swanson is an author, activist,
journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of
WorldBeyondWar.org
and campaign coordinator for
RootsAction.org.
Swanson’s books include
War
Is A Lie
. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org
and
WarIsACrime.org.
He hosts
Talk
Nation Radio
. He is a 2015,
2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Nobel Peace Prize
Nominee.

© Scoop Media

 



Source link

- Advertisment -
Times of Georgia Times of Georgia Times of Georgia

Most Popular