zlacker

I don't think that's quite accurate: https://thewest.com.au/news/health/who-team-visits-wuhan-res...

>>incomp+(OP)
Except that it was (allegedly) a whole load of BS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evHFsNSMTLM

>>zensav+A4
You have to keep in mind laowhy86 isn't exactly know to be impartial

>>hungry+e7
How so? Be specific.

>>incomp+(OP)
I uh, don’t see anything in this article except fluff? It basically says ‘researchers were in wuhan’.

The original I read had such helpful statements as ‘the chinese government insisted that every outside researcher was accompanies by a chinese partner’, ‘the government took days to procure the data, and when they finally did, a lot was missing’ and ‘a visit to x was denied for unclear reasons’.

I’m sorry, I’m vaguely remembering these, so they may not be 100% accurate.

Then the western researchers made one gloriously ambiguous statement while still in China, and turned about after they left the country.

>>coupde+pu
I make no moral judgement about impartiality. Work out the implications yourself.

I make no comment about the content of the video linked in GGP's post.

That being said, the following is publicly known (but unverified by me) and quite apt to affect impartiality (whether under his control or not, whether consciously or not):

1. He was persecuted in China by the authorities and barely escaped with the posessions on his body.

2. He is currently under attack by brigades and agents of the persons he is critical of. The attacks follow standard psychological warfare patterns, including death threats to himself and the family.

Additionally, some speculation from me:

3. He has no journalistic training, both his business partner and his peers in the wider YT/Patreon business don't have either, and to me it seems both content producer and audience have come to a shared understanding that the shows are primarily entertainment and should not be held to the same rigour of journalistic integrity one would expect from e.g. a traditional print periodical. Adv Media's income entirely depends on YT/Patreon, and employing sensationalism – which results in uneven amplification of the reported reality – brings in more money. I haven't seen a completely sober/dry video.

>>coupde+pu
He says the second WIV job ad is something like help we need someone to deal with a virus emergency. That's not at all what it actually said.

>>Aeolun+2w
Also an interesting thing - the WIV used to put all their virus sequences in a publically available database. Around autumn 2019 they took it down they said because people were trying to hack it. I think it's still confidential even to the WHO. I mean if they were worried about hackers they could just publish a copy of the data.

>>tim333+SP
Is there a source for this? My Google-fu isn't turning up anything.

>>fakeda+oe1
> It emerged last week that the team had not even asked to see the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s online database, locked since September 2019 and taken down altogether in the spring of 2020. That database is known to contain 22,000 samples, mostly of viruses, 16,000 of them from bats. These include eight viruses very closely related to the virus causing the pandemic but whose genome sequences have not been published. They were collected in 2015 from a disused mineshaft, a thousand miles away, where in 2012 six men fell ill with a disease very like Covid.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/15/world-health-org...

>>bmn__+dL
Have you seen their older videos? They had to hold back any criticism, and everything was mostly peachy. Now, the gloves are off, and they do have an ax to grind, unquestionably. However, just because they have to respond to tons of wumaos and tankies doesn't mean what they say isn't true. Furthermore, they do not pretend to be journalists, so I don't think this criticism has integrity.

Their experiences living in China line up with mine. I haven't seen an instance of them compromising their integrity.

>>tim333+lP
Can you read Chinese, or is that what you read somewhere? I don't remember, so I'll go back and check that sometime.

>>coupde+NS1
You have not understood me well. I did not say that I think "what they say isn't true". I did not say that I think they "pretend to be journalists". You interpret things into my post and attempt to refute that are not there, which is a shame because I took great deliberation to formulate it precisely the way it is. The topic under discussion is impartiality, not integrity! Be mindful of the difference.

> Have you seen their older videos?

I am subscribed since late 2016.

> Their experiences living in China line up with mine.

same

>>coupde+jT1
They had English translations of the job ads in I think The Sun of all places.

eg https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/job-ad-experts-bats...

>>bmn__+Aw2
I see, I agree. I don't think it's a particularly insightful observation to say they are impartial- they have a very clear voice. When I hear someone labelled impartial, I assume that's an attempt to discredit their character.

>>zensav+A4
Fair points about the one year delay etc., and the initial WHO response. The Chinese government is hardly renowned for transparency. I was just replying to a claim that the investigation hadn't been allowed anywhere near the lab: they did get a cursory visit after a one year delay.