Thread by @GPIngersoll

One thing I will never forget:

We are having this conversation exactly a year late because the media wanted to make sure Biden won the election.

https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/1399001720248848384

The irony is that Trump probably would have lost anyway, but the fact remains, any line of inquiry remotely perceived as beneficial to Trump had to be stamped out … and anyone willing to pursue it was treated as an insane pariah AND viciously suppressed on social media.

The last part is what annoys me most. It’s not just that American media mimicked Chinese propaganda, it’s that the fact checking apparatus was eager to enforce the orthodoxy.

And it wasn’t for lack of information. Don’t let them gaslight you. Not very much info has changed.

“All evidence available today was available twelve months ago, and most evidence available today was available fifteen months ago,” Rutgers University chemical biology professor Richard Ebright told the Daily Caller.

dailycaller.com/2021/05/28/cov…

You weren’t allowed to say the virus might have been “engineered” even though GoF papers the NIH published between 2013-2017 were TOTALLY OPEN about and even used the terminology “engineered” and “created.”

These are publicly available documents, you could find them in 10 mins.

1. The significance of all this simply cannot be stated. We were much more likely to get an answer to this line of inquiry last year than we are today. Perhaps the most globally important inquiry to humanity since … I don’t even know when, polio?

The most important mystery

2. Mankind has seen in the last 100 years and our “fact checking” apparatus and media’s “truth seeking” function did more than just fail us, they acted to aggressively suppress that line of inquiry … with much fanfare and self righteous puffing of chests …

This is worse than

3. Russiagate by orders of magnitude. The fact that “gain of function” is only now entering common media lexicon is an absolute travesty.

For all the emphasis in disinfo these last few years, it plain disgusts me that the whole structure actively disinformed the public.

And I’m deliberately using that term because they deliberately decided not to look at a line of inquiry on superficial terms. It was not a mistake, it was a deliberate choice to treat a certain thread of dialogue as absolutely toxic, then find post hoc justification for doing so.

Don’t believe me? The top two “letters” — in Lancet and Nature — that set the tone for media coverage don’t stand even MINUTE scrutiny. Just a half hour of research shows anyone with a brain that they are

1. Headlined by people with vested interest

2. LITERALLY JUST GUESSING

The Lancet letter is obviously a farce, but the Nature letter is much more insidious in its efforts to use jargon and assumption to mislead a layman audience.

I encourage everyone who hasn’t to read this piece, which ties everything we’ve known for the last year together nicely.

I want to emphasize that: Almost ALL of the information in this piece was available the same time last year.

thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-or…

Finally, there’s still people out there saying the genetic sequencing of the virus points to a natural spill over, since the virus is closely related to those found in bats.

My main issue w that is:

Where the fuck is the spillover animal? There’s limited fauna in Wuhan. The entire CCP is looking for this thing. Historically speaking, It should be basically just process of elimination. A search this long is literally unprecedented.

Well? Where is it?

Last thing I want to note is an anecdote. In Dec we got an inquiry from a major media outlet about "coronavirus misinfo." They wanted to know two things:

1. If we had any justification for writing stories about lab leak hypothesis.

2. How much we got in PPP loans.

The reporter was using the findings from a study by one of many creepy and chilling "disinfo" orgs that has popped up recently.

Oddly, we found the site she worked for had syndicated a story that also asked questions about the lab, and so her editors decided not to include us.

The main goal of her story though was to financially hurt any media that entertained lines of inquiry wider media found distasteful. That was the gist.

Utterly chilling and reprehensible behavior from a reporter.

(You can probably find the story if you look hard enough.)

She also refused to even let us look at the evidence against us, which I found weird. She wanted us to respond to allegations without looking at the evidence, as she was making an effort to financially hurt our company for entertaining "disinfo" that Covid19 might have leaked.

This is the state of media today. Adopt our orthodoxy on -- basically whatever, sex changes for children, russian bounties -- or we will destroy you.

It's not just a matter of 'we'll conduct open discourse until we have the right answer,' it is literally "we will destroy you."