The CIA under Trump is backing the "theory" Trump wants them to back. What a shock.
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
82 points (75.0% liked)
News
24235 readers
4961 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hypothesis
Fever dream
Concept of a fever dream
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this was the conclusion reached under Biden.
It was not a conclusion then and it is not even one now. As the article says, they are calling this "low confidence."
"The finding is not the result of any new intelligence, and the report was completed at the behest of the Biden administration and former CIA director William Burns."
- from the 2nd paragraph of the Guardian article
I'm not arguing for the claim, only stating that I think this is the result of Biden's administration.
Well of course they were going to investigate the possibility. They would be lax in their duties if they didn't. But they have never said it was likely.
Here, let me correct you: you’re wrong. The genome sequence indicates it was from the wild. Mutations would have been acquired upon cultivation in vitro that would have shown up in the genome sequence and that was not the case. The biology doesn’t lie, but people sure do. Just read it for yourself.
That's not correct. This is the origin report under the Biden administration from the Intelligence Community. This is the summary:
[...] the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged.
After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.
Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps.
The IC judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged.
Step 1: order release of report from previously, publically
Step 2: order it to be modified secretly and redact all parts not supporting your theory before release
Step 3: Desired theory is now "corroborated"
But the CIA would never lie and doesn't have a century long history of doing nothing but lying and only releasing the half truth a half century later right??
It doesn't matter where it came from! It doesn't change the fact that our government left us to die, and corporations picked over our remains. As humanity grows so does the possibility of new diseases. Covid was almost the perfect test disease for modern nations to experience. Deadly enough to have to be taken seriously, but not deadly enough to be uncontrollable. We could have stopped the spread in 14 days. But stopping the flow of private money was unthinkable for even one day, so doors stayed open and the disease flourished. If covid was more deadly the world would have crumbled to ground because the wealthy and powerful can't imagine losing one cent of profit. Even if that means losing billions of lives.
I didn't trust the CIA in the first place, but given their low confidence in this conclusion and the fact that Trump ordered it released, it's essentially journalistic malpractice to publish this article.
You know what is true? The Trump admin had a hand in making the outbreak far worse, both in China and in the US. Doesn't really matter if the origin is natural or manmade if you completely fumble the ball in a response. This is a very lame attempt to push a blame game back on China again.
The CIA now believes the virus responsible for the coronavirus pandemic most likely originated from a laboratory, according to an assessment released on Saturday that points the finger at China even while acknowledging that the spy agency has “low confidence” in its own conclusion.
A low confidence finding essentially means the evidence to support that theory is incomplete or questionable.
Aside from the fact that even the CIA doesn't believe this, isn't this the same shit we talked about 2 years ago?
You are correct, this is not new, nor does it bring any new information to light.
It's a low confidence theory, but still the most likely theory based on the available evidence. And yeah it's not new news.
This feels quite politically motivated. Trump appointment aside, the CIA specifically uses the words "low confidence", so even if they deem it the most likely, it's still only the most likely from several low confidence options.
But look at how lawmakers exploit it:
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton said he was “pleased” the CIA concluded in the Biden administration’s final days that the lab-leak theory was the most plausible explanation of Covid-19’s origins, and commended Mr Ratcliffe for releasing the conclusion.
“Now, the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world,” Mr Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, said in a statement. BLOOMBERG
They so obviously all being paid/blackmailed to destroy this country from within.
Rest in pieces USA, all thanks to republican traitor filth.
“Now, the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world,” Mr Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, said in a statement.
What plague? I thought the whole thing was made up to "control us" and everyone died of the flu.
What a sad joke that a moron like Cotton is chairman of the fucking intelligence committee...
Welp, look at that. Guess Captain Cheeto didn't lie all along since... checks notes... the CIA was now told to push a false narrative.
/s
What a load of horseshit. There goes the reputation of another department.
It wasn't released because it was low confidence. Meaning the evidence behind this is non existent or contradictory. It makes a great headline but nobody who is serious thinks this confirms the lab theory.
Added the /s because I was being sarcastic. ;)
Ahh okay. Thank you.
Fuck scientists, long live dogma!
Isn't this like really old news? They had a similar investigation years ago that also had low confidence. They're only doubling down. It also changes nothing.
The new director of the CIA, a Trumpist stooge, is now pushing Trumpist lies.
FTFY
Oh I 100% agree, I just kept the article title the same as was originally published.
Considering trump's efforts to put political officers in charge of all official communications, any such "news" must be considered suspect.
20 year later...
OK guys, Here's how a laser works...first you need two mirrors, then Aliens.
OK, Here's how cars get made! Mostly aliens
And fruit has to get picked. You guessed it! Aliens!
What difference does it make? It was still a pandemic that wasn't planned, and many people lost their lives or had their lives severely affected as a result. And a certain US president, I will not name any names, completely mismanaged it, because it took his name off the frontpages of the news papers and Fox News.
Other governments were also completely idiotic in their response.
My government, for instance, had a different roadmap out of Covid lockdowns every week or so. Our minister of security at the time held a wedding reception while the rest of the country was in lockdown. And our Prime Minister ("teflon Mark Rutte") just laughed it all away.
So it's not just the US where the government was stupid, but we didn't have morgues overflowing with dead bodies where they were stored in refrigerated trucks on the street, but we did have overflowing ERs and nurses on the brink of burn out, because the finances for those care units had been stripped because of neo-liberal policies in the past decade or so.
I think one difference it makes, to answer your question, is that unsubstantiated claims like this tend to spread, virus like. Especially when pedalled by presidents and official government agencies. Many governments handled the pandemic predictably awfully, but this false narrative can have dangerous consequences, too. I'm worried about the number of times I've seen 'plandemic' spoken about. It gives me the impression that simply through repetition the meme grew stronger. But now it's being echoed by_official statespeople. _
The difference is that it'd allow the attribution of negligence which could be used for geopolitical gain.
E.g. "Government X's bad management of COVID wouldn't have been an issue if China wasn't leaking deadly diseases out of research institutions. So Government X deserves compensation for the harm China caused to the people of Government X. So X will institute trade sanctions of China."
C'mon, we can't trust the CIA, we can't trust the CIA with a Trump lackey and we can't trust China. This is just no-news, this is nothing
I should clarify, I included the excerpt in the post because i, too, believe this is bullshit.
Who gives a shit?
It wasn't a man-made lab leak.
Who gives a shit?
So we can prevent the next one. More stringent lab testing procedures are required in China. And, if not implemented, we can easily have a repeat event with a different pathogen.
Even if it was, does it make a difference? It's not like this is the type of thing you would do on purpose, because releasing it hurts everyone equally.
The only thing that you should conclude out of this is that you should probably just ban gain of function research and make sure lab security is regularly inspected by the WHO, things that should already be in place without needing a pandemic.
Yes but now all the screetching heads can screetch it was all made by China and funded by George Soros and all Fauci's fault and all the horrible talking points because there is a "source" that "proves" it was a man-made leak.
This really doesn't change much though, the DOE put out the same low confidence theory 2 years ago. The fact that the intelligence agency hasn't reached a better confidence level two years after the energy department said the same thing, that's more like a massive strike against the theory than anything that supports it.
The main reason they don't have the evidence is because China won't cooperate. We may never know.
It’s quite funny how the virus originated in a city with a lab studying precisely that kind of virus, yet judging by the comments, it’s considered outrageous to even suggest the possibility that it might have escaped from that lab.
Nobody is claiming with absolute certainty that it did, but it seems strange to completely dismiss the idea.
Nobody is claiming with absolute certainty that it did,
Are you kidding? Of course they are
Who?
You are mistaking dismissal with lack of acceptance. They are different.
The first is "I don't accept this." The second is "I need more to be convinced of it."