Pushing back against this being evidence at all, this claim has been repeated since 2020, so I don’t know how it being restated again changes evidence much.
The names of the WIV employees are new information. The WIV actually putting Furin cleavage sites into Coronoviruses in 2019 is new information. An US intelligence agency overruling their own analysts is new information.
The article you links to says:
But in its report, which arrived belatedly on June 23, the U.S. Intelligence Community, or IC, does not substantiate any of these details.
[...]
The 10-page report, which does not name any individuals, says the IC “continues to assess that this information neither supports nor refutes either hypothesis of the pandemic’s origins because the researchers’ symptoms could have been caused by a number of diseases and some of the symptoms were not consistent with COVID-19.”
Interestingly, the article leaves out the fact that they IC is in violation of the law by not naming the individuals given that they have been tasked with declassifying all the information.
I see no reason to leave out that crucial fact if your intention is not to misinform the reader. The fact that the IC is willing to violate the law and does not declassify the information is indiscriminating evidence.
If they would have nothing to hide, why would they violate the law?
I can’t read your linked article due to access restrictions.
Interesting that the law required them to name the researchers, but they did not. Maybe they don’t have the researcher’s names? Maybe there wasn’t enough confidence in naming the researchers, but the anonymous sources gave out speculative names as fact? Maybe the anonymous sources are lying?
There’s a new article/interview going on with an apparent WIV worker who claims to have engineered SARS-CoV2 as a bioweapon and was ordered to release it, so at least some sources are lying about some things.
At this point I need verification of sources to believe any claims at all.
edit: It seems like at least two of the named Chinese researchers deny being sick at the time. Whether you trust their word or the word of anonymous alleged government sources says more about you than reality.
It seems like at least two of the named Chinese researchers deny being sick at the time. Whether you trust their word or the word of anonymous alleged government sources says more about you than reality.
So it’s about whether you are the kind of person who believes free speech exists in China or whether you believe that it doesn’t really exist and that researchers will say what the CCP wants them to say when it comes to issues that are very important to the CCP.
It’s about whether when you put someone on trial for murder and they say “I didn’t do it” you believe them or whether you find other people more believable.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall— (1) declassify any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19), including— (A) activities performed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology with or on behalf of the People’s Liberation Army; (B) coronavirus research or other related activities performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the outbreak of COVID–19; and (C) researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who fell ill in autumn 2019, including for any such researcher— (i) the researcher’s name; (ii) the researcher’s symptoms; (iii) the date of the onset of the researcher’s symptoms; (iv) the researcher’s role at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; (v) whether the researcher was involved with or exposed to coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; (vi) whether the researcher visited a hospital while they were ill; and (vii) a description of any other actions taken by the researcher that may suggest they were experiencing a serious illness at the time.
(2) submit to Congress an unclassified report that contains— (A) all of the information described under paragraph (1); and (B) only such redactions as the Director determines necessary to protect sources and methods.
(U) WIV RESEARCHERS WHO FELL ILL IN FALL 2019 Several WIV researchers were ill in Fall 2019 with symptoms; some of their symptoms were consistent with but not diagnostic of COVID-19. The IC continues to assess that this information neither supports nor refutes either hypothesis of the pandemic’s origins because the researchers’ symptoms could have been caused by a number of diseases and some of the symptoms were not consistent with COVID-19. Consistent with standard practices, those researchers likely completed annual health exams as part of their duties in a highcontainment biosafety laboratory. The IC assesses that the WIV maintains blood samples and health records of all of their laboratory personnel—which are standard procedures in highcontainment laboratories. • We have no indications that any of these researchers were hospitalized because of the symptoms consistent with COVID-19. One researcher may have been hospitalized in this timeframe for treatment of a non-respiratory medical condition. • China’s National Security Commission investigated the WIV in early 2020 and took blood samples from WIV researchers. According to the World Health Organization’s March 2021 public report, WIV officials including Shi Zhengli—who leads the WIV laboratory group that conducts coronavirus research—stated lab employee samples all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. While several WIV researchers fell mildly ill in Fall 2019, they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with COVID-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to COVID-19. While some of these researchers had historically conducted research into animal respiratory viruses, we are unable to confirm if any of them handled live viruses in the work they performed prior to falling ill.
You can tell for yourself whether you believe they reported here what the law required them. I think it’s very clear that they didn’t follow the law and withheld information.
If the person that fact check employed would have been half decent at their job, they should know that not including the details that the law asked for was a violation in the law but they failed to inform their readers about that fact.
And given the previous reporting of the IC leadership overruling their analysts when the analysts believed in the lab leak the fact that the IC leadership is illegally withholding information matters.
That’s fair and my high confidence comes from actually reading a lot of the primary sources and not just media reports.
And yet your confidence is updated to 99.9% by an unverified anonymous second hand source.
I read both statements, thank you very much for reposting them here for clarity.
I do not believe the report is following the bill to the letter of the law. That being said, I do not believe this is evidence of malfeasance. It’s possible this is all the information they have, and they do not have specific evidence on researcher names, hospital admittance dates, or other such details.
Honestly, if they provided such details, that would reveal how thoroughly they’ve infiltrated Chinese intelligence. Even if it was all provided and blacked out, that would still be revealing about their intelligence capabilities.
Even now I’m suspicious in how they knew researchers were sick. I know there were some social media reports going around, but how would they be able to confirm that? Did they even confirm the social media reports, or just trusted it was true because it’s likely people are sick during flu season?
My best explanation would be they have a dragnet on Chinese social media and caught some of the researchers posting flu symptoms.
And yet your confidence is updated to 99.9% by an unverified anonymous second hand source.
This story is not the only new information that I have seen since I had my public likelihood two years ago at 99%.
I wouldn’t call a source that Matt Taibbi interviewed unverified. I have a lot of trust built up in Matt over the 15 years. The article also does not say that anything in it rests on a single source.
Even now I’m suspicious in how they knew researchers were sick. I know there were some social media reports going around, but how would they be able to confirm that?
Why do you think the NSA exists? To only read social media reports? The NSA can easily hack hospitals to get relevant data. They can hack individual researchers. There are other sources as well that they could hack. They might access location data about when the researcher stayed home and when they went to the hospital.
They were not tasked with sharing how they know what they know, but just sharing what they knew.
One letter that the NIH send to the EcoHealth alliance back in 2020 said:
Disclose and explain out-of-ordinary restrictions on laboratory facilities, as suggested, for example, by diminished cell-phone traffic in October 2019, and the evidence that there may have been roadblocks surrounding the facility from October 14-19, 2019.
That statement reveals much more about intelligence capabilities than listing a bunch of names of researchers and their symptoms would.
One important point here is that according to the WIV itself they were facing a hacking attack back then which was their excuse for taking down the database of coronavirus sequences. The most likely source for that hacking attack seems to me to be a Western intelligence service.
Pushing back against this being evidence at all, this claim has been repeated since 2020, so I don’t know how it being restated again changes evidence much.
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/scicheck-no-bombshell-on-covid-19-origins-u-s-intelligence-rebuts-claims-about-sick-lab-workers/
The names of the WIV employees are new information. The WIV actually putting Furin cleavage sites into Coronoviruses in 2019 is new information. An US intelligence agency overruling their own analysts is new information.
The article you links to says:
Interestingly, the article leaves out the fact that they IC is in violation of the law by not naming the individuals given that they have been tasked with declassifying all the information.
I see no reason to leave out that crucial fact if your intention is not to misinform the reader. The fact that the IC is willing to violate the law and does not declassify the information is indiscriminating evidence.
If they would have nothing to hide, why would they violate the law?
I can’t read your linked article due to access restrictions.
Interesting that the law required them to name the researchers, but they did not. Maybe they don’t have the researcher’s names? Maybe there wasn’t enough confidence in naming the researchers, but the anonymous sources gave out speculative names as fact? Maybe the anonymous sources are lying?
There’s a new article/interview going on with an apparent WIV worker who claims to have engineered SARS-CoV2 as a bioweapon and was ordered to release it, so at least some sources are lying about some things.
At this point I need verification of sources to believe any claims at all.
edit: It seems like at least two of the named Chinese researchers deny being sick at the time. Whether you trust their word or the word of anonymous alleged government sources says more about you than reality.
So it’s about whether you are the kind of person who believes free speech exists in China or whether you believe that it doesn’t really exist and that researchers will say what the CCP wants them to say when it comes to issues that are very important to the CCP.
It’s about whether when you put someone on trial for murder and they say “I didn’t do it” you believe them or whether you find other people more believable.
That’s fair and my high confidence comes from actually reading a lot of the primary sources and not just media reports.
When it comes to this claim in particular, let’s look at the primary sources.
The bill requires them to:
The report that they released says:
You can tell for yourself whether you believe they reported here what the law required them. I think it’s very clear that they didn’t follow the law and withheld information.
If the person that fact check employed would have been half decent at their job, they should know that not including the details that the law asked for was a violation in the law but they failed to inform their readers about that fact.
And given the previous reporting of the IC leadership overruling their analysts when the analysts believed in the lab leak the fact that the IC leadership is illegally withholding information matters.
And yet your confidence is updated to 99.9% by an unverified anonymous second hand source.
I read both statements, thank you very much for reposting them here for clarity.
I do not believe the report is following the bill to the letter of the law. That being said, I do not believe this is evidence of malfeasance. It’s possible this is all the information they have, and they do not have specific evidence on researcher names, hospital admittance dates, or other such details.
Honestly, if they provided such details, that would reveal how thoroughly they’ve infiltrated Chinese intelligence. Even if it was all provided and blacked out, that would still be revealing about their intelligence capabilities.
Even now I’m suspicious in how they knew researchers were sick. I know there were some social media reports going around, but how would they be able to confirm that? Did they even confirm the social media reports, or just trusted it was true because it’s likely people are sick during flu season?
My best explanation would be they have a dragnet on Chinese social media and caught some of the researchers posting flu symptoms.
This story is not the only new information that I have seen since I had my public likelihood two years ago at 99%.
I wouldn’t call a source that Matt Taibbi interviewed unverified. I have a lot of trust built up in Matt over the 15 years. The article also does not say that anything in it rests on a single source.
Why do you think the NSA exists? To only read social media reports? The NSA can easily hack hospitals to get relevant data. They can hack individual researchers. There are other sources as well that they could hack. They might access location data about when the researcher stayed home and when they went to the hospital.
They were not tasked with sharing how they know what they know, but just sharing what they knew.
One letter that the NIH send to the EcoHealth alliance back in 2020 said:
That statement reveals much more about intelligence capabilities than listing a bunch of names of researchers and their symptoms would.
One important point here is that according to the WIV itself they were facing a hacking attack back then which was their excuse for taking down the database of coronavirus sequences. The most likely source for that hacking attack seems to me to be a Western intelligence service.