One thing that the Dem-Marxist Party & Their Mignons in the legacy media and social media have taught us is that those who say something is a conspiracy theory are lying about a truth that they don't want the world to know is true because it upsets their narrative and/or (financial) interests. The "Laptop from Hell" is a classic example of this. The "Wet Market" cause of COVID was another example to protect Fauci and Dem-Marxist people. There are other examples of "That's a Conspiracy Theory!"

On 4/19/2025 at 11:12 AM, NorthernRyland said:

You got this perfectly backwards. The so-called conspiracy theories are on the rise because people are able to communicate more freely now and don't rely solely on centralized media as their main source of truth.

Northern can you please tell me what '' centralised '' media is thank you.

11 hours ago, kwilco said:

Claims that viruses have never been isolated ignore the wealth of evidence from decades of research.

 

Vaccines, which save millions of lives, undergo extensive testing for safety and efficacy, and antiviral drugs, like Tamiflu for influenza, are proven to reduce the severity of infections.

This is monumental hogwash Sir. 

 

Simply unscientific Big Pharma, white-coat nonsense.

 

''',,,,reduce the severity of infections.''' Reduce the effects of the symptoms. Restrict the body trying to right itself. Not getting to the root causes. This is modern medicine all over. A pill for every ill.

If you are interested in understanding why conspiracy theories have become so prevalent,  read a book titled Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time.  It gives a serious explanation without a lot of academic mumbo-jumbo.  It was written by Michael Shermer, the leading U.S. skeptic.

 

Conspiracy theories a great phrase to control the narrative. And not healthy for our Democracy, Not Healthy for Democracy.. Not healthy for Democracy 

15 minutes ago, Merrill said:

Conspiracy theories a great phrase to control the narrative. 

 

No... Its a simple is a term used to describe the belief or explanation that significant events or situations are covertly orchestrated by powerful, often malevolent entities, rather than unfolding through transparent or natural means.

 

At times, such theories have proven to hold elements of truth - where dominant narratives were indeed shaped or manipulated to conceal inconvenient realities.

 

In other instances, however, these theories spiral into the realm of the irrational and unhinged, driven not by evidence but by an entrenched anti-establishment mindset. For those lingering at the fringes of reason, suspicion becomes a lens through which all truth is distorted, and paranoia masquerades as insight.

 

While some conspiracy theories have, over time, been vindicated or revealed to contain elements of truth, it would be a categorical error to treat all such theories as equally credible. The existence of valid conspiracies does not grant automatic legitimacy to every claim that wears the same label. To group them all under one umbrella and regard them with the same level of seriousness is to ignore the vast spectrum that exists - ranging from plausible skepticism to outright delusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

A pill for every ill.

 

Except stupidity—no cure, no vaccine, no hope.

3 hours ago, wavodavo said:

Northern can you please tell me what '' centralised '' media is thank you.

 

The legacy corporate news media where they chose the agenda and present it you in one direction. If there are opposing opinions they will go ignored or at best they have controlled opposition to play devils advocate and make the news appear impartial.

 

This is opposed to decentralized internet media where anyone can present some information and then others can contribute and communicate back and forth with each other.

A more appropriate name for those who are seeking truth should be truth seeker, not conspiracy theorist.  A "universal truth" should be able to stand alone and weather any questioning from a truth seeker. 

 

During the course of my truth seeking, the more a truth seeking idea is ridiculed and scorned the more likely you should target that area and dig deeper.  It means you have hit a weak tender area full of nonsense.

 

After confirming lots of lies, I am now progressing to studying who is in charge and their thought processes and motivations behind all the lies.  Trying to determine the doctrine they are following.  And of course it involves the most sensitive of sensitive concepts.  Which means a bullseye.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

A more appropriate name for those who are seeking truth should be truth seeker, not conspiracy theorist.  A "universal truth" should be able to stand alone and weather any questioning from a truth seeker. 

 

While the term "truth seeker" sounds noble, it becomes problematic when it's used to rebrand conspiracy theorists in a way that preemptively legitimises their claims. Seeking truth is admirable, but true inquiry requires rigorous evidence, a willingness to revise beliefs, and an openness to being wrong.

 

Simply questioning the mainstream doesn’t make someone a truth seeker - it’s the method and intellectual honesty that define the pursuit, not the title.

 

3 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

During the course of my truth seeking, the more a truth seeking idea is ridiculed and scorned the more likely you should target that area and dig deeper.  It means you have hit a weak tender area full of nonsense.

 

The idea that ridicule is a sign of hidden truth is a logical fallacy - specifically, the Galileo gambit. Just because a theory is mocked doesn’t mean it’s correct. Many ideas are ridiculed because they lack coherence, evidence, or rational foundation - not because they’ve “hit a nerve.” Fringe claims often invite scorn because they’re outlandish, not because they’re dangerous revelations.

 

To quote Kwilco (earlier on in this thread) who quoted Thomas Jefferson: 

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

 

3 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

After confirming lots of lies, I am now progressing to studying who is in charge and their thought processes and motivations behind all the lies.  Trying to determine the doctrine they are following.  And of course it involves the most sensitive of sensitive concepts.  Which means a bullseye.

 

Asserting that “confirming lies” automatically leads one to “the doctrine of those in charge” assumes a shadowy control structure without first proving its existence. Jumping from observed inconsistencies to grand narratives about elite cabals and hidden doctrines is often less about truth and more about pattern-seeking in chaos - a psychological impulse, not a logical conclusion.

 

Additionally, the notion that the most sensitive topics are inherently the most true (“bullseye”) is circular reasoning. Sensitivity doesn't imply validity.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

You are mistaken in your assumption that I avoid mainstream content. I don't, in fact I follow it just as intently as I follow fringe content. I reject nor adhere to neither blindly, I try (as difficult as that is) to look at things as objectively as possible.

 

My various interactions with a multitude of people has led me to conclude that perhaps my "difference" (for lack of a better word) lies in my willingness to entertain the notion that mass-scale deception is absolutely possible.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

While the term "truth seeker" sounds noble, it becomes problematic when it's used to rebrand conspiracy theorists in a way that preemptively legitimises their claims. Seeking truth is admirable, but true inquiry requires rigorous evidence, a willingness to revise beliefs, and an openness to being wrong.

 

Simply questioning the mainstream doesn’t make someone a truth seeker - it’s the method and intellectual honesty that define the pursuit, not the title.

 

 

The idea that ridicule is a sign of hidden truth is a logical fallacy - specifically, the Galileo gambit. Just because a theory is mocked doesn’t mean it’s correct. Many ideas are ridiculed because they lack coherence, evidence, or rational foundation - not because they’ve “hit a nerve.” Fringe claims often invite scorn because they’re outlandish, not because they’re dangerous revelations.

 

To quote Kwilco (earlier on in this thread) who quoted Thomas Jefferson: 

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

 

 

Asserting that “confirming lies” automatically leads one to “the doctrine of those in charge” assumes a shadowy control structure without first proving its existence. Jumping from observed inconsistencies to grand narratives about elite cabals and hidden doctrines is often less about truth and more about pattern-seeking in chaos - a psychological impulse, not a logical conclusion.

 

Additionally, the notion that the most sensitive topics are inherently the most true (“bullseye”) is circular reasoning. Sensitivity doesn't imply validity.

Brilliant post—I’m lost for words!

Here is yet another shining example of modern enlightenment: a conspiracy stitched together by the algorithmic hive-mind of social media.

 

It kicks off with some basement philosopher, armed with nothing but Wi-Fi and unwarranted confidence, mangling facts. The digital village quickly awakened - like moths to a particularly stupid flame - each one parroting the last, building a rickety cathedral of nonsense on the foundation of their shared ignorance.

 

The recent Blue Origin New Shepard flight - many are suggesting this was a fabrication and also use the SpaceX Falcon 9 flight as a comparison.

 

The Space X Capsule was scored on re-entry, Blue Origin was clean.

 

Blue Origin’s suborbital capsule never comes close to the speeds required for atmospheric reentry heating - there’s simply not enough velocity. Topping out around Mach 3 (roughly 3,500 km/h), it doesn’t generate the friction or compression needed to produce the iconic fireball effect seen in true spaceflight.

 

For contrast, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets exceed Mach 10 during ascent, and the Dragon capsule reaches orbital velocity - about 28,000 km/h. That staggering difference explains why Blue Origin’s launches lack the visceral drama of orbital missions. To the untrained eye, it might even seem theatrical - too clean, too slow, too suspiciously smooth.

 

The landing of Blue Origin was too hard to be realistic:

Tolerable, if a bit jarring. Passengers endure about 4 Gs on descent - not insignificant, but still a cakewalk compared to the brutal forces experienced in orbital reentry. The capsule is equipped with semi-reclined crash seats designed to absorb some of that final impact.

 

The door Blue Origin was flimsy compared to other 'space craft' and opened inward:

It opens inward by design, a deliberate safety feature. When there’s a pressure differential between the inside and outside of a cabin (as there is at altitude), an inward-opening door becomes physically impossible to open, preventing accidental depressurisation. Critically, the door can be opened in an emergency: a removable handle allows for external access post-landing. During one mission, a passenger reportedly opened the door too early, prompting ground crews to halt the impromptu escape - not for safety, but because the scene wasn’t yet Instagram-ready.

 

The Blue Origin Capsules interior is basic and looks faked: 

The capsule’s interior may appear spartan - even cheap - compared to high-performance orbital vehicles, but that’s largely because it doesn’t need to endure the same brutal conditions. Three Gs on ascent, four on descent - mild, by spaceflight standards. There’s no need for the heavy shielding, intricate thermal protection systems, or complex avionics demanded by true orbital spacecraft.

 

All of that said: the Blue Origin’s flights aren’t fake - but they are hollow.

The whole affair is less about exploration and more about elevation - of egos, that is. It’s a meticulously choreographed joyride for the ultra-wealthy, controlled entirely from the ground, dressed up in the language of space travel but stripped of any real stakes. Its a carnival ride for billionaires, masquerading as progress.

 

A trip to the Kármán Line (the boundary of space) not an orbital flight - all of the comparisons used to suggest the Blue Orbit flights are faked can easily be picked apart.

 

 

 

The Blue Origin Capsules had Mannequins and no people: 

(zoom in on the hand).

This one is doing the rounds on social - the photo is of a test flight where Mannequins were used.

What’s circulating online is a misleading narrative spun from a test flight that used mannequins to simulate human passengers. This is standard practice for testing purposes, as mannequins equipped with sensors provide critical data about the forces passengers would experience during launch and landing. There’s no conspiracy here—just practical, controlled experimentation, essential for ensuring passenger safety before actual human flights.

 

 

------------------

 

All of the above illustrates how easily a conspiracy can be both fabricated and believed, built on a foundation of flawed narratives and falsehoods.

 

What's even more alarming is how many will eagerly embrace such fabrications, driven not by genuine conviction, but by an unwillingness - or inability - to engage in the effort required to evaluate and verify the facts.

 

Far too often, it’s the path of least resistance that wins: the lazy and the ignorant rushing to adopt narratives without a second thought.

 

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Far too often, it’s the path of least resistance that wins: the lazy and the ignorant rushing to adopt narratives without a second thought.

 

Indeed, probably better to think of the current iterations of Blue Origin as an aircraft launched by rocket and landing with parachutes with no landing gear. It's essentially a robot.

On 4/19/2025 at 12:18 PM, rumak said:

 

I remember looking at one of those landing photos on "the moon"  and was a bit surprised by seeing something in the distance .  It definitely was the McDonads arches !  

 

no doubt some of the gullibles here will not understand that I am being humourous .   ( a lost art )

 

Years ago a friend of mine was helping at a party attended by Buzz Aldrin and asked him in person "Buzz, what was it like on the moon?"

His answer, "I can't believe I was there." 

 

Make of it what you will!! She said there were rumours at the time (in the late 70's) that it was staged, so the answer wasn't exactly helpful.

20 hours ago, Merrill said:

Conspiracy theories a great phrase to control the narrative. And not healthy for our Democracy, Not Healthy for Democracy.. Not healthy for Democracy 

Ahhh, an incantation, keeps away the evil spirits no doubt.

 

Saying it 3 times, is that a guarantee of truth?

 

LEWIS CARROLL

The Hunting of the Snark

""Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,...
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
        That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
        What i tell you three times is true."'

 

Nothing like a good old fashioned snark hunt!

53 minutes ago, cmsally said:

 

Years ago a friend of mine was helping at a party attended by Buzz Aldrin and asked him in person "Buzz, what was it like on the moon?"

His answer, "I can't believe I was there." 

 

Make of it what you will!! She said there were rumours at the time (in the late 70's) that it was staged, so the answer wasn't exactly helpful.

Wow.

Actually, meh.

 

Saw a "kids interview" type interview where kids were told there are moon landing skeptics. One kid pointed to his head and said "They're thick as a fish". I thought that was a good comparison.

19 hours ago, cmsally said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

 

As a result of the internet's democratization of mass communication anyone can do this now, It is not only the state that has the ability to reach millions and do so frequently.

 

So Joe Crackpot on "the YouTube" is just as likely to be pushing a "big lie" as Big Brother is.

 

23 hours ago, renaissanc said:

One thing that the Dem-Marxist Party & Their Mignons in the legacy media and social media have taught us is that those who say something is a conspiracy theory are lying about a truth that they don't want the world to know is true because it upsets their narrative and/or (financial) interests. The "Laptop from Hell" is a classic example of this. The "Wet Market" cause of COVID was another example to protect Fauci and Dem-Marxist people. There are other examples of "That's a Conspiracy Theory!"

 

"the Dem-Marxist Party & Their Mignonsthe Dem-Marxist Party & Their Mignons"

 

Are those Filet Mignons?

Uhmmm, tasty.

On 4/19/2025 at 2:57 AM, kwilco said:

Why Wild Ideas Are Thriving

Poor parenting 

 

These idiots don't know any better. 

They've grown up without proper training.......no  people skills. 

Another one bites the dust

 

 

6 hours ago, johng said:

Another one bites the dust

 

 

 

I think the 'Lab Leak Theory'... Is one of those which holds a lot of water....

 

I've always believed the Lab Leak is more plausible than the 'natural spillover' explanation authorities initially ran with.

 

Below is evidence supporting the 'Lab Leak Theory' and against 'Natural Spillover Theory'... 

 

 

Evidence Supporting the Lab Leak Theory of SARS-CoV-2

 

1. Outbreak Originated Near a Top Coronavirus Lab (Wuhan Institute of Virology)

The first known cluster of COVID-19 cases emerged in Wuhan, which houses the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — a world-renowned centre for coronavirus research.

 

2. Dr. Shi Zhengli – “Bat Woman”

Dr. Shi Zhengli, a senior scientist at WIV, is one of the world’s top experts on bat coronaviruses. Her team:

- Collected bat virus samples from caves across China.

- Conducted genetic manipulation on coronaviruses to assess their ability to infect human cells.

- Had published work on making chimeric coronaviruses with spike proteins designed to test infectivity.

Some of the bat viruses she studied were strikingly similar to SARS-CoV-2 — including RaTG13, which shares ~96% genome similarity.

 

3. No Confirmed Intermediate Animal Host

Unlike SARS (civets) and MERS (camels), no animal has been definitively identified as the bridge between bats and humans in COVID-19.

 

4. Coronavirus Engineering and Gain-of-Function Research

The WIV had been conducting gain-of-function research, enhancing viral features to better understand potential pandemic risks — a controversial technique.

Critics argue this kind of research may have inadvertently produced or amplified a virus capable of infecting humans efficiently.

 

5. Lack of Transparency and Missing Data

Important WIV databases were taken offline in late 2019.

Raw virus samples, lab notebooks, and experiment logs from the WIV have not been shared with international investigators.

 

6. Reports of Illness Among WIV Staff

A U.S. intelligence report revealed three WIV researchers fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, prior to the official start of the pandemic.

 

7. Suspicious Genetic Features

The furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein is uncommon among related coronaviruses and may enhance infectivity in humans.

Some scientists suggest this could be a lab-inserted feature, although others argue it could arise naturally.

 

8. Poor Lab Safety Protocols

A 2018 U.S. diplomatic cable raised concerns about insufficient biosafety practices at the WIV.

WIV handled some coronaviruses at BSL-2 or BSL-3 levels, which are lower biosafety levels than what many experts believe are appropriate for such research.

 

9. Early Suppression of Information

Chinese authorities silenced early warnings, censored media, and punished doctors who spoke out — like Dr. Li Wenliang, who later died of COVID-19.

 

 

Evidence Against Natural Spillover

 

1. No Identified Intermediate Host

Despite extensive global searching, no animal species has been found carrying a virus close enough to SARS-CoV-2 to be the missing link — not pangolins, not civets, not raccoon dogs.

By contrast, SARS and MERS both had their intermediate hosts (civets and camels) identified within months of those outbreaks.

 

2. No Infected Animal Found at Huanan Market

While environmental samples from the market tested positive for the virus (on surfaces, cages, etc.), no infected animals were recovered or tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

If it was a true zoonotic spillover hotspot, at least one infected animal should’ve been found, but none was — and live animals were quickly removed or destroyed before full testing could be done.

 

3. Outbreak Emerged Far from Closest Known Bat Populations

The virus likely originated in bats, but the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., RaTG13) were found in southern China (Yunnan) — over 1,000 km away from Wuhan, with no clear natural path of transmission to the city.

Why would a bat-borne virus first appear in an urban centre far from the bats, unless it was brought there — say, via human activities… or a lab?

 

4. Two Early Lineages at Once? Unlikely in Natural Spread

Genetic analysis shows that two lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were circulating early in the outbreak (Lineage A and B), rather than a single strain radiating outward.

This suggests multiple introductions into humans or a rapidly evolving population in a single location — which is odd for a slow-moving zoonotic jump.

 

5. No Precursor Virus Identified in the Wild

Even after extensive animal surveillance across Asia and beyond, no viral precursor (e.g., 98–99% similarity) has been found in any wild or farmed animal.

SARS-CoV-2 appears to have emerged “ready-made” for humans — highly transmissible from the start — which is unusual for viruses crossing species barriers.

 

6. Rapid Human Adaptation from the Outset

SARS-CoV-2 had a high affinity for human ACE2 receptors right from the beginning, without the usual "adaptation curve" seen in most zoonoses.

Viruses usually take time (and mutations) to adapt for efficient human-to-human transmission, but SARS-CoV-2 seemed unusually well-adapted immediately.

 

7. Chinese Authorities Suppressed Key Data

Wildlife market animals were destroyed before full testing.

Raw data was removed or withheld.

Journalists and scientists faced censorship or retraction of papers related to early cases and virus origins.

If the natural origin was clear-cut, why all the secrecy?

 

8. WHO Investigation Was Incomplete and Politically Limited
The 2021 WHO-China joint mission to investigate the origins of COVID-19 was tightly controlled by Chinese authorities. It did not include full lab access and relied on second-hand data.

Even WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus later admitted the lab leak hypothesis was prematurely dismissed.

 

9. Lack of Serological Evidence in Animals or Farmers
No consistent antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in animal handlers, farmers, or wildlife trade workers prior to the outbreak, which would suggest prior animal-to-human spillover activity.

 

 

------------------------

 

The above serves as a compelling example of what might be considered a valid conspiracy—specifically, the alleged efforts to suppress or discredit the lab-leak theory.

 

This underscores the importance of not lumping all so-called “conspiracy theories” into the same category. There exists a wide spectrum of plausibility, and to equate something like the lab-leak debate with absurdities such as flat Earth theory is both misleading and intellectually lazy. The latter, in my view, doesn’t even merit the label of a conspiracy.

On 4/20/2025 at 12:41 PM, NorthernRyland said:

 

The legacy corporate news media where they chose the agenda and present it you in one direction. If there are opposing opinions they will go ignored or at best they have controlled opposition to play devils advocate and make the news appear impartial.

 

This is opposed to decentralized internet media where anyone can present some information and then others can contribute and communicate back and forth with each other.

"decentralized internet media where anyone can present some information"

 

"Information" often belongs in quotes.

"Anyone can claim/say anything" without things like editorial boards, fact checkers, libel lawyers, verifying the information.

 

It's possible to get unique, truthful, unbiased information from "decentralized internet media where anyone can present anything" but it's not probable.

Which I say because to a certain extent it is true that "anything is possible".

 

More likely it is a forum where those exhibiting "the unshakeable certainty of the half-educated" can engage in mutual admiration.

What to do about them? Hope for another pandemic, should get rid of a few.

12 minutes ago, rickudon said:

What to do about them? Hope for another pandemic, should get rid of a few.

 

Pandemics don't work, Rick, we're still here and fit as fiddles. Keep up the brainstorming!

On 4/21/2025 at 9:07 AM, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think the 'Lab Leak Theory'... Is one of those which holds a lot of water....

 

I've always believed the Lab Leak is more plausible than the 'natural spillover' explanation authorities initially ran with.

 

Below is evidence supporting the 'Lab Leak Theory' and against 'Natural Spillover Theory'... 

 

 

Evidence Supporting the Lab Leak Theory of SARS-CoV-2

 

1. Outbreak Originated Near a Top Coronavirus Lab (Wuhan Institute of Virology)

The first known cluster of COVID-19 cases emerged in Wuhan, which houses the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — a world-renowned centre for coronavirus research.

 

2. Dr. Shi Zhengli – “Bat Woman”

Dr. Shi Zhengli, a senior scientist at WIV, is one of the world’s top experts on bat coronaviruses. Her team:

- Collected bat virus samples from caves across China.

- Conducted genetic manipulation on coronaviruses to assess their ability to infect human cells.

- Had published work on making chimeric coronaviruses with spike proteins designed to test infectivity.

Some of the bat viruses she studied were strikingly similar to SARS-CoV-2 — including RaTG13, which shares ~96% genome similarity.

 

3. No Confirmed Intermediate Animal Host

Unlike SARS (civets) and MERS (camels), no animal has been definitively identified as the bridge between bats and humans in COVID-19.

 

4. Coronavirus Engineering and Gain-of-Function Research

The WIV had been conducting gain-of-function research, enhancing viral features to better understand potential pandemic risks — a controversial technique.

Critics argue this kind of research may have inadvertently produced or amplified a virus capable of infecting humans efficiently.

 

5. Lack of Transparency and Missing Data

Important WIV databases were taken offline in late 2019.

Raw virus samples, lab notebooks, and experiment logs from the WIV have not been shared with international investigators.

 

6. Reports of Illness Among WIV Staff

A U.S. intelligence report revealed three WIV researchers fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, prior to the official start of the pandemic.

 

7. Suspicious Genetic Features

The furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein is uncommon among related coronaviruses and may enhance infectivity in humans.

Some scientists suggest this could be a lab-inserted feature, although others argue it could arise naturally.

 

8. Poor Lab Safety Protocols

A 2018 U.S. diplomatic cable raised concerns about insufficient biosafety practices at the WIV.

WIV handled some coronaviruses at BSL-2 or BSL-3 levels, which are lower biosafety levels than what many experts believe are appropriate for such research.

 

9. Early Suppression of Information

Chinese authorities silenced early warnings, censored media, and punished doctors who spoke out — like Dr. Li Wenliang, who later died of COVID-19.

 

 

Evidence Against Natural Spillover

 

1. No Identified Intermediate Host

Despite extensive global searching, no animal species has been found carrying a virus close enough to SARS-CoV-2 to be the missing link — not pangolins, not civets, not raccoon dogs.

By contrast, SARS and MERS both had their intermediate hosts (civets and camels) identified within months of those outbreaks.

 

2. No Infected Animal Found at Huanan Market

While environmental samples from the market tested positive for the virus (on surfaces, cages, etc.), no infected animals were recovered or tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

If it was a true zoonotic spillover hotspot, at least one infected animal should’ve been found, but none was — and live animals were quickly removed or destroyed before full testing could be done.

 

3. Outbreak Emerged Far from Closest Known Bat Populations

The virus likely originated in bats, but the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., RaTG13) were found in southern China (Yunnan) — over 1,000 km away from Wuhan, with no clear natural path of transmission to the city.

Why would a bat-borne virus first appear in an urban centre far from the bats, unless it was brought there — say, via human activities… or a lab?

 

4. Two Early Lineages at Once? Unlikely in Natural Spread

Genetic analysis shows that two lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were circulating early in the outbreak (Lineage A and B), rather than a single strain radiating outward.

This suggests multiple introductions into humans or a rapidly evolving population in a single location — which is odd for a slow-moving zoonotic jump.

 

5. No Precursor Virus Identified in the Wild

Even after extensive animal surveillance across Asia and beyond, no viral precursor (e.g., 98–99% similarity) has been found in any wild or farmed animal.

SARS-CoV-2 appears to have emerged “ready-made” for humans — highly transmissible from the start — which is unusual for viruses crossing species barriers.

 

6. Rapid Human Adaptation from the Outset

SARS-CoV-2 had a high affinity for human ACE2 receptors right from the beginning, without the usual "adaptation curve" seen in most zoonoses.

Viruses usually take time (and mutations) to adapt for efficient human-to-human transmission, but SARS-CoV-2 seemed unusually well-adapted immediately.

 

7. Chinese Authorities Suppressed Key Data

Wildlife market animals were destroyed before full testing.

Raw data was removed or withheld.

Journalists and scientists faced censorship or retraction of papers related to early cases and virus origins.

If the natural origin was clear-cut, why all the secrecy?

 

8. WHO Investigation Was Incomplete and Politically Limited
The 2021 WHO-China joint mission to investigate the origins of COVID-19 was tightly controlled by Chinese authorities. It did not include full lab access and relied on second-hand data.

Even WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus later admitted the lab leak hypothesis was prematurely dismissed.

 

9. Lack of Serological Evidence in Animals or Farmers
No consistent antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in animal handlers, farmers, or wildlife trade workers prior to the outbreak, which would suggest prior animal-to-human spillover activity.

 

 

------------------------

 

The above serves as a compelling example of what might be considered a valid conspiracy—specifically, the alleged efforts to suppress or discredit the lab-leak theory.

 

This underscores the importance of not lumping all so-called “conspiracy theories” into the same category. There exists a wide spectrum of plausibility, and to equate something like the lab-leak debate with absurdities such as flat Earth theory is both misleading and intellectually lazy. The latter, in my view, doesn’t even merit the label of a conspiracy.

But those are classic conspiracy theory tropes and language. Di you know th initial researsh program was set up incorporation with the USA?

Do you think it was intentional?

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Pandemics don't work, Rick, we're still here and fit as fiddles. Keep up the brainstorming!

All except the dead people.

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

All except the dead people.

 

Too few of those, our ranks are growing. We are a plague and should not exist, so what should the Good People do about us? It's a fundamental issue.

On 4/21/2025 at 10:07 AM, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think the 'Lab Leak Theory'... Is one of those which holds a lot of water....

 

I've always believed the Lab Leak is more plausible than the 'natural spillover' explanation authorities initially ran with.

 

Below is evidence supporting the 'Lab Leak Theory' and against 'Natural Spillover Theory'... 

 

 

Evidence Supporting the Lab Leak Theory of SARS-CoV-2

 

1. Outbreak Originated Near a Top Coronavirus Lab (Wuhan Institute of Virology)

The first known cluster of COVID-19 cases emerged in Wuhan, which houses the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — a world-renowned centre for coronavirus research.

 

2. Dr. Shi Zhengli – “Bat Woman”

Dr. Shi Zhengli, a senior scientist at WIV, is one of the world’s top experts on bat coronaviruses. Her team:

- Collected bat virus samples from caves across China.

- Conducted genetic manipulation on coronaviruses to assess their ability to infect human cells.

- Had published work on making chimeric coronaviruses with spike proteins designed to test infectivity.

Some of the bat viruses she studied were strikingly similar to SARS-CoV-2 — including RaTG13, which shares ~96% genome similarity.

 

3. No Confirmed Intermediate Animal Host

Unlike SARS (civets) and MERS (camels), no animal has been definitively identified as the bridge between bats and humans in COVID-19.

 

4. Coronavirus Engineering and Gain-of-Function Research

The WIV had been conducting gain-of-function research, enhancing viral features to better understand potential pandemic risks — a controversial technique.

Critics argue this kind of research may have inadvertently produced or amplified a virus capable of infecting humans efficiently.

 

5. Lack of Transparency and Missing Data

Important WIV databases were taken offline in late 2019.

Raw virus samples, lab notebooks, and experiment logs from the WIV have not been shared with international investigators.

 

6. Reports of Illness Among WIV Staff

A U.S. intelligence report revealed three WIV researchers fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, prior to the official start of the pandemic.

 

7. Suspicious Genetic Features

The furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein is uncommon among related coronaviruses and may enhance infectivity in humans.

Some scientists suggest this could be a lab-inserted feature, although others argue it could arise naturally.

 

8. Poor Lab Safety Protocols

A 2018 U.S. diplomatic cable raised concerns about insufficient biosafety practices at the WIV.

WIV handled some coronaviruses at BSL-2 or BSL-3 levels, which are lower biosafety levels than what many experts believe are appropriate for such research.

 

9. Early Suppression of Information

Chinese authorities silenced early warnings, censored media, and punished doctors who spoke out — like Dr. Li Wenliang, who later died of COVID-19.

 

 

Evidence Against Natural Spillover

 

1. No Identified Intermediate Host

Despite extensive global searching, no animal species has been found carrying a virus close enough to SARS-CoV-2 to be the missing link — not pangolins, not civets, not raccoon dogs.

By contrast, SARS and MERS both had their intermediate hosts (civets and camels) identified within months of those outbreaks.

 

2. No Infected Animal Found at Huanan Market

While environmental samples from the market tested positive for the virus (on surfaces, cages, etc.), no infected animals were recovered or tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

If it was a true zoonotic spillover hotspot, at least one infected animal should’ve been found, but none was — and live animals were quickly removed or destroyed before full testing could be done.

 

3. Outbreak Emerged Far from Closest Known Bat Populations

The virus likely originated in bats, but the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., RaTG13) were found in southern China (Yunnan) — over 1,000 km away from Wuhan, with no clear natural path of transmission to the city.

Why would a bat-borne virus first appear in an urban centre far from the bats, unless it was brought there — say, via human activities… or a lab?

 

4. Two Early Lineages at Once? Unlikely in Natural Spread

Genetic analysis shows that two lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were circulating early in the outbreak (Lineage A and B), rather than a single strain radiating outward.

This suggests multiple introductions into humans or a rapidly evolving population in a single location — which is odd for a slow-moving zoonotic jump.

 

5. No Precursor Virus Identified in the Wild

Even after extensive animal surveillance across Asia and beyond, no viral precursor (e.g., 98–99% similarity) has been found in any wild or farmed animal.

SARS-CoV-2 appears to have emerged “ready-made” for humans — highly transmissible from the start — which is unusual for viruses crossing species barriers.

 

6. Rapid Human Adaptation from the Outset

SARS-CoV-2 had a high affinity for human ACE2 receptors right from the beginning, without the usual "adaptation curve" seen in most zoonoses.

Viruses usually take time (and mutations) to adapt for efficient human-to-human transmission, but SARS-CoV-2 seemed unusually well-adapted immediately.

 

7. Chinese Authorities Suppressed Key Data

Wildlife market animals were destroyed before full testing.

Raw data was removed or withheld.

Journalists and scientists faced censorship or retraction of papers related to early cases and virus origins.

If the natural origin was clear-cut, why all the secrecy?

 

8. WHO Investigation Was Incomplete and Politically Limited
The 2021 WHO-China joint mission to investigate the origins of COVID-19 was tightly controlled by Chinese authorities. It did not include full lab access and relied on second-hand data.

Even WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus later admitted the lab leak hypothesis was prematurely dismissed.

 

9. Lack of Serological Evidence in Animals or Farmers
No consistent antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in animal handlers, farmers, or wildlife trade workers prior to the outbreak, which would suggest prior animal-to-human spillover activity.

 

 

------------------------

 

The above serves as a compelling example of what might be considered a valid conspiracy—specifically, the alleged efforts to suppress or discredit the lab-leak theory.

 

This underscores the importance of not lumping all so-called “conspiracy theories” into the same category. There exists a wide spectrum of plausibility, and to equate something like the lab-leak debate with absurdities such as flat Earth theory is both misleading and intellectually lazy. The latter, in my view, doesn’t even merit the label of a conspiracy.

 

I agree there are varying degrees of relevance and plausibility. Flat Earth is indeed a tricky one to handle, if it were a video game mode, it would be Impossible Mode (or God Mode) 

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Too few of those, our ranks are growing. We are a plague and should not exist, so what should the Good People do about us? It's a fundamental issue.

Another lab leak.