Subject: Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?
Try some websites ending in .gov

Sounds good, but is naive. Someone here remembers the heater discussion about the origin of the SARS-CoV2 virus? Not just out there, but also on this board? Me and the one or two others who posted info material supporting the lab origin theory "of course" were treated dismissive as it was "clear" that it was far more likely that
the origin was Wuhan's animal market than that Lab.

That mainstream narrative came into being because leading virologists (Fauci, Germany's Drosten etc.) immediately (interesting in itself!) published an according paper and from then on politicians and all the reputable media repeated that narrative constantly until everybody believed it.

So anyone suggesting otherwise must have been a conspiracy theorist --- which also is a synonym for "right-wing extremist", the ultimate tool for pushing that one in a corner.

Now to some interesting facts (bold by me) from a ".gov" website, from

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...
(NCBI = National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of NHI = National Health Institute)

The alternative scenario is that of a laboratory accident after gain-of-function manipulation of SARS-CoV2. First, there is the absence of identified intermediate hosts after three years of pandemics. Second, why Wuhan? This megapolis where the first cases of Covid-19 were detected is remote from the areas of bat reservoirs. In the early phase of the pandemic, the absence of secondary outbreaks that would have accompanied the trade of living animals is surprising. During the emergence of other recent viral respiratory diseases transmitted by animals on markets, as SARS and H7N9 avian influenza, multiple scattered clusters were observed [32], [33], [34]. In Wuhan and elsewhere, researchers have practiced GoF on sarbecoviruses. According to publications, chimeric viruses were created in 2015, followed by 8 more viruses in 2017, two of which were pathogenic to humanized mice. All indications are that the origin of SARS-CoV2 in December 2019 was very recent, a hypothesis corroborated by epidemiological models. We also observe very low genetic diversity of initial isolates, contrasting with the high diversity that viruses can deploy in a few weeks. Moreover, the SARS-CoV2 was immediately highly contagious, witnessing a remarkable adaptation of this bat virus to humans. The presence of a furin site in SARS-CoV2, which is not found in any other known sarbecovirus, is also a singular feature that remains to be explained.
......
......
In March 2018, a joint funding application was submitted to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), a U.S. research funding agency. It involved teams from WIV and the U.S. non-governmental organization EcoHealth Alliance. It is proposed to search bat coronavirus samples collected in Yunnan by the WIV team, which are genetically close SARS-CoV1 and possibly bearing furin cleavage sites. The project stipulates that, in case of failure to find such viruses, researchers intend to manipulate SARS-like coronaviruses to increase binding affinity to human lung tissue and possibly to insert furin sites at the same location as those found in SARS-CoV2 [47].

- "WIV" is the Wuhan Lab.
- Teams of this Lab applied at DARPA for "gain of function" research
- for exactly that modification of the "Furin site" which made that Corona virus so highly infectious in humans
- that virus which can be traced back to Wuhan

All known then already, posted then by me, "of course" dismissed. Because then no website with the ".gov" ending dared revealing those irritating facts which were in opposition to the propagated narrative.

Interesting fact on the side: Leading suppressors of the lab theory were renowned virologists, like Germany's "Super-Virologist" Drosten. I don't know about his counterpart Fauci, but Drosten always was a strong promoter of "gain of function" research --- but saying that this might have caused the Pandemie would have meant he would have shoot himself in the foot, cutting himself from further funding of "gain of function" research = career and reputational suicide.

Could it be that ".gov" websites are not the neutral and unbiased information source you might think they are?

Further point in case: The German scandal about the world-renowned reputable RKI (Robert-Koch-Institut): The RKI published internal protocols about discussions during the Pandemie only with many parts "geschwärzt" (What's the English word? "Blacked out"? It's about making passages unreadable).

The scandal initiated when the original protocols were leaked. What was "blacked out" were for example among the scientists about Jens Spahn's (then Germany's health Minister) public statement of the "Pandemie der Ungeimpften" ("Pandemic of the Unvaccinated"), claiming that people who refuse to be vaccinated are responsible for the Pandemie by spreading the virus. He claimed that while it was already clear that vaccination only protects oneself, not the others, that vaccinated ones also spread the virus.

In the protocols those scientists argue that science does not support the public claim of Germany's Health Minister --- but also say that "above" it's not wished for that the RKI says so, therefore contradicting him. This was said even by Wheeler, the RKI's boss!

So much for the unbiased reporting of Germany's official leading Health Institution, which is supposed to be independent from political influence.

Don't believe it? Google "RKI Files" - - - You don't have to look at conspiracy websites, it's all public now.

My conclusion from all that came to daylight now, years after the Pandemic: You can only rely on ".gov" if the issue it's about is politically neutral, otherwise bureaucrats, scientists etc. in those institutions simply to protect themselves, their reputation, their funding, their careers won't inform you - - - or even misinform you.