The lies surrounding the whole Cv business come down very much to sources again. One cannot quote from any source unless its bias is known … all sources are biased, so one chooses the bias which has previously been not far from the mark or else is trusted.
There were two items came through here today. One was a glossy article with Science plastered over it and ‘independent journalism’ as the byline. A bit like the left wing ‘Independent’ rag in the UK. One must be eternally on one’s guard.
It was trying to make out, in a Sientifik way, that the virus has been shown to be non-human made. Utter bollox in the sense explained below but not utter bollox in isolation.
Establishment pushback, masquerading as ‘independent’, not unlike Snopes – be very careful with anything calling itself ‘independent’ or purporting to bring you ‘the facts’. I want to know the bias of the author before I read anything.
Let me go into that further. The thesis was that the virus came ‘from nature’, that it was not man-made but that is sophistry, legerdemain. Of course it’s from nature but not in the way that article said. The article tried to pooh pooh any human involvement, which is not so if you look at this clip:
Stop what you are doing and watch this. pic.twitter.com/HWg4Rpgufn
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) April 1, 2020
This is what I mean by being supercareful. If you can’t access that, Tucker Carlson made a correction from the previous evening – the virus came out of that particular bat but there were no bats in that market at all, they had people on the spot. The bats were in a lab not far from there. Now that puts a different complexion on it. That ‘Science’ article had said it was natural – fine, it was. From a bat. But it failed to mention that there were no bats in that market.
The second missal was about the drug about to have clinical trials:
No one has approved any mass use before clinical trials but the anti-Trump camp is trying to make it appear so. I’ve no particular love for Sandoz but they’re certainly going to be cautious. With it likely to blow up in their face if it goes wrong, of course they’re going to say that at the end of the link.
The message to me said that there were side=effects of the original drug, including blindness. Yes – as far as that goes – yes. It also suggested the drugs were just going to be distributed without trials – no one knows that but Sandoz at least is sending them on the basis that they are held back until the trials confirm or deny.
And that is a different slant to the one which came in. I see James Wilson has put a video in comments and the same conditions apply. What is that man’s bias – I don’t give a damn about his reassuring manner – I want to know his background, his agenda, his bias first before assessing whether what he posted is worth it. It might be, it might not … but caution is needed.