Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
Another day, another COVID study …
Last Monday, researchers formally published a peer-reviewed study showing that some of the genetic material found in COVID-19 perfectly matches the genetic material in a nucleotide sequence patented by Moderna six years ago.
The researchers concluded that such a match “may occur randomly but other possibilities must be considered.” To proponents of the lab leak theory, the study’s findings seemed like more evidence that COVID-19 was man-made.
This study received virtually zero mainstream media attention.
Exactly five days later, another set of researchers “released a pair of extensive studies that point to a market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the coronavirus pandemic,” as eagerly reported by The New York Times.
Unlike the previous study, this “pair” of studies has received widespread media attention. This despite the new “pair” of studies thus far being neither peer-reviewed nor formally published in any journal of note.
“The two reports have not yet been published in a scientific journal that would require undergoing peer review,” the Times admits.
This fact has led quite a few individuals to wonder why the Times chose to even report on these studies in the first place:
Since 2020, @nytimes has treated the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis as a pure conspiracy theory. Now it publicizes two unpublished, not-peer-reviewed studies that have some common co-authors. Biden has admitted that a lab leak is one of “two likely scenarios.” https://t.co/Ag14XkspGg
— Brahma Chellaney (@Chellaney) February 27, 2022
I have read this news article three times now and it is still not clear to me why these preprints, while interesting, merited a news alert from the New York Times for a story that couches the findings with phrases like “very likely” and “might have.” https://t.co/LzP2M6jEW1
— Alison Young (@alisonannyoung) February 26, 2022
The coverage of the newest preprints by the Proximal Origin authors and friends must be breaking some kind of record.
— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) February 27, 2022
Despite these issues, the left-wing paper nevertheless eagerly reports that the researchers have “concluded that the coronavirus was very likely present in live mammals sold in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in late 2019 and suggested that the virus twice spilled over into people working or shopping there.”
“They said they found no support for an alternate theory that the coronavirus escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan,” according to the Times.
The paper even obtained a quote from Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist who it turns out co-authored both studies.
“When you look at all of the evidence together, it’s an extraordinarily clear picture that the pandemic started at the Huanan market,” Worobey told the Times.
These findings have been met with a great deal of skepticism, including even from the Times’ own notoriously left-wing readers, stunningly enough:
The same sentiment can be seen on Twitter.
I am not a conspiracy nut. There are 59 biosafety level 4 (BSL4) labs in the world where researchers work with the most dangerous pathogens on the planet. In the entire world, this unique virus coincidentally comes from 1 of the 59 cities. That’s winning lotto & hit by lightning
— Morris Wisdom (@MorrisWisdom3) February 26, 2022
“Scientists found out” is not worth anything anymore. Studies can be wrong, biased and even made up. Just because some “scientists” say it probably came from the market, it’s not very probable when you concern that there is a big lab and they worked on gain-of-function mutations.
— Die Zahnfee // genesen, war ne Erkältung. (@dasImpfauge) February 26, 2022
Not surprised they had to blame someone, but those wet markets have been around for decade’s, so not totally convinced. So blame a poor street market instead of a multi million $ laboratory. It’s never there fault with all the viruses and vials of stuff they got inside
— Grant Pigott (@proteadrive) February 26, 2022
LOL. Last week the CDC admitted withholding COVID data. Why should anybody believe a word of anything out of this sponsored paper?! pic.twitter.com/yNJZuJQ08w
— Krom (@Krom55967042) February 27, 2022
What the last Twitter use seen above wrote is true. Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ostensibly the most credible scientific agency in the United States, admitted to having covered up some of the truth about COVID.
A CDC spokesperson said that the agency had been concerned that the data might be misused to breed distrust against the COVID vaccines. But by getting caught withholding data, the CDC itself managed to breed the most distrust.
Similarly, critics say that the Times’ decision to uncritically report on the latest two studies, all while ignoring last week’s study, has done the same thing …
YOU CAN SUPPORT THE TRUCKERS SAFELY HERE!
( Note: Olympic Media is helping truckers meet their financial needs)
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Biden STILL peddling clearly false claim about AR-15 bullet velocity in latest gun ban push - September 25, 2022
- Trump goes ‘scorched earth’ in Maggie Haberman’s new book – talking to NYT scribe seen as fatal flaw - September 25, 2022
- Hypocrite David Hogg admits that he’s been shooting guns with his FBI dad since 4th grade - September 25, 2022
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.