Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120302462#Comment_120302462

No it’s not clear at all. You just seem to dismiss the fact that countries such as the US act in their interest and in their interest only. Not to protect minorities or civilian populations. Of course they will use those motives as pretexts for interventions when it is in their interests but when it is in their interests to keep despots who murder their populations in power they will happily provide the funds and means to do so.

What aspect of history have I “reframed”? Could you provide examples.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120302028#Comment_120302028

Again you are dodging my question while demanding I answer yours.

That's one reason that I don't think the claims you are making are true.

People who claimed that it might have been a lab leak were not dismissed as conspiracy theorists by some organized conspiracy.

The people who were dismissed were the types who were claiming that the virus was artificially created as a bioweapon etc.

The speculation was not censored.

Again if these things were true, then the FBI would not have done what they did. You are not explaining this contradiction.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120302484#Comment_120302484

You just seem to dismiss the fact that countries such as the US act in their interest

Nope.

Edit: tiring anti-Western diatribe number 352 on the conspiracy forum

realitykeeper

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120300699#Comment_120300699

You sound like someone who watches RTE and believes everything they tell you. Can`t help you mate.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120303158#Comment_120303158

No examples of your allegation I see.

Quelle surprise.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120303118#Comment_120303118

I am not demanding anything.

People who claimed there was a lab leak were dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

You are conflating the lab leak/bio weapon nonsense again.

Here is a good article on the subject.

https://www.ft.com/content/41f6f9ba-db82-4782-8ec0-bc952abb3836

Also this. Organised by Peter Daszak, someone with a vested interest in stifling the idea that Covid originated from a lab leak.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2930418-9/fulltext

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304047#Comment_120304047

Ok. You are demanding that I answer your questions while you continue to dodge mine.

I'm not conflating anything I'm pointing out that conspiracy theorists who promoted conspiracy theories were dismissed as such.

Those are what were being proposed here on this forum.

You haven't been able to explain why the FBI are not being discredited and you are bending over backwards to avoid this point. This indicates to me your theory is false.

Also lol. Talk about conflating.

The Lancet article you posted doesn't say anything about a lab leak. It says conspiracy theories about the virus not being natural: ie. Man made. Which you've agreed is a conspiracy theory that should be dismissed.

Mullaghteelin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304016#Comment_120304016

On any given day there are a huge number of news stories that never get a mention on RTE.

Anyone who relies on RTE as a primary news source would reasonably assume "conspiracy theory" whenever they realize these topics are being discussed and debated elsewhere. Those conspiracy theorists with their "right wing talking points" is the automatic assumption.

If these topics cannot be debunked, they tell us instead that no one is talking about them except a small minority.

But, if RTE refuse to touch the story then inevitably no one will be aware of it apart from right leaning anti-establishment types who get their news elsewhere. Its a vicious circle.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304047#Comment_120304047

The first article is pay walled.

The second article stresses the natural origin of covid. Lab leak isnt even mentioned. Therefore this appears to be misrepresentation by you.

"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin."

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304126#Comment_120304126

I am not demanding anything, stop making stuff up. I don’t care if you answer questions or not. I am not demanding anything as I have said.

The lancet letter, if you read the FT article, served to conflate a lab leak with a man made bio weapon so that the very mention of the possibility that the pandemic was the result of a lab leak was seen as unethical.

The FBI report, over 18 months after the start of the pandemic was criticised.

I haven’t agreed that the virus was not manipulated in the lab in Wuhan. This seems less likely than it being an accidental release of a natural virus but none of us know enough about the research that was carried carried out to rule out gain of function, spike protein manipulation entirely.

What was being conflated was that the Chinese deliberately or accidentally released a bio weapon.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304262#Comment_120304262

Sorry I didn’t realise it was paywalled.

Here it is copy and pasted;

The conversation around Covid-19’s origins has shifted markedly in recent weeks. Suddenly, the idea that the virus could have come from an accidental lab leak, once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory”, is considered a possibility — even a likelihood, by some. Fact-checking site PolitiFact recently decided to “archive” a fact-check it published last year on whether the virus was “man-made”, which it gave its most censorious “pants-on-fire!” rating, but which it now says is “more widely disputed”.

Likewise, The Washington Post issued a correction on a story it published in February 2020 on Republican senator Tom Cotton’s efforts to press China for evidence to back up its claims that the virus had emerged naturally. The Post said he was repeating a “conspiracy theory that was already debunked”; it now acknowledges there is “no determination about the origins of the virus”. One might assume that this shift has come on the back of new evidence, but the facts haven’t changed in any material way, though some new information has emerged. What has changed, however, is that the lab-leak theory has become politically acceptable. It seems it is only now that Donald Trump — who claimed in April 2020 to have evidence that Covid-19 had emanated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — has departed the White House that the possibility that the virus was man-made can be entertained. “The fact that Trump embraced this idea suddenly turned it into a polarising conversation,” says Daniel Drezner, a political scientist at Tufts University. “Now that Trump is no longer in office, suddenly it becomes a little bit more permissible to talk about this.”

We live in a world in which topics are often approached with preconceived notions about what we would like the truth about them to be, based on our political stances, and we then seek out “facts” that prove those notions. But just because Trump spewed endless lies about all manner of topics, and spoke about China in a way that many considered offensive and racist, doesn’t mean we should discount everything he said simply because it was he who was saying it. We also seem to live in a world that prefers binary possibilities. One of the reasons the theory of an accidental lab leak was dismissed was because it was conflated with the idea that China had maliciously developed Covid-19 as a bioweapon. While this idea didn’t gain traction, even among Trump and his allies, by falsely equating the leak with biological weaponry, it was much easier to dismiss. “People took the lab leak hypothesis, they straw-manned it, and then they debunked the straw-manned version that they had straw-manned themselves,” says Eric Weinstein, a mathematical physicist and managing director at Thiel Capital, who has long considered the lab leak hypothesis plausible.

It wasn’t just journalists and social commentators who conflated the two hypotheses; some scientists did too. The Lancet published a statement in February 2020 signed by 27 scientists who said they “(stood) together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin”. By using the words “condemn”, and “conspiracy theories”, these scientists — who, it has emerged, had been brought together by a man whose organisation has funded research at the WIV — managed to make even questioning the idea that the virus had passed from an animal into humans appear unethical. But just because rigorous debate was difficult, doesn’t mean it should not have taken place. We need to be comfortable seeking out truths that might make us uncomfortable, and to stay open to the possibility that we might end up agreeing with those who we find disagreeable. The Biden administration may be less enthusiastic about “alternative facts” than the previous one, but what we might call “fact wars” have outlived Trump’s presidency. “Facts” are being used as weapons selected to push narratives, rather than to guide us to the truth. We need to stop policing the discourse if we are to avoid living in an alternative reality.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304016#Comment_120304016

Heres someone who does their own research

cgcsb

The conspiracy Community, if you can call them that seem to be getting wilder on their claims, they've moved on to now claiming that the 15 minutes cities active travel initiative is a conspiracy to confine the population to a small area. Bonkers stuff.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304328#Comment_120304328

That doesn't support your statements. Lab leak here appears to relate to accidental lab leak of a man made virus.

Direct quote from first article:

It seems it is only now that Donald Trump — who claimed in April 2020 to have evidence that Covid-19 had emanated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — has departed the White House that the possibility that the virus was man-made can be entertained.

So the first article does not relate to accidental lab leak of a naturally derived virus.

And the second article doesn't even mention lab leak:

"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin."

If it is still your position that people were labelled as conspiracy theorists for raising possibility of a lab leaked natural virus then the evidence you have presented in support of it is blatant misrepresentation.

weisses

So can we agree that The FBI and the department of energy are a bunch of ct nutters by suggesting covid came from a lab in Wuhan ?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304298#Comment_120304298

Ok.So if you don't care what my answers to your questions are, why ask them?

Have you noticed though that I'm able to address them directly, clearly and without deflection? Can you say that you do the same?

But the Lancet letter does not mention lab leaks at all. That's something you're inventing. This is something conspiracy theorists do very often to misrepresent things.

Do you agree that the notice that the vaccine was artificially created or created or manipulated to be a bioweapon or to sell vaccines are conspiracy theories that should be dismissed?

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304365#Comment_120304365

No you are absolutely right. The idea that the pandemic may have started from a leak in a laboratory in Wuhan was widely discussed on television and in newspapers from January 2020. It was given the same weight as competing hypotheses as to the origin of Covid. It was not only allowed but encouraged on social media and there was no suppression of discussion or health warnings attached to opinions on the matter at all.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304394#Comment_120304394

Yes, you are absolutely right. You have correctly addressed all my questions and I now realise that you were entirely correct all along.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304443#Comment_120304443

And now that people aren't immediately accepting your beliefs, you're having this outburst.

Have you considered that this might be why people are lumping you in with other conspiracy theorists?

Why do believe that your conspiracy theory is more valid when you aren't able to explain anything about it and have to misrepresent things to try and show it exists?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304436#Comment_120304436

This is just more misrepresentation on your part. This isn't what anyone is arguing.

realitykeeper

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304330#Comment_120304330

Not so much. I just notice double standards and inconsistencies in mainstrean media and then listen to alternative narratives to see whether or not they make sense. In short, I think for myself.

seanin4711

all the covid ones

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304734#Comment_120304734

Ahh, now don't be lazy. Which ones specifically?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304016#Comment_120304016

slides out bingo card

Interesting, please go on, should we not trust the RTE, mainstream media and the government?

weisses

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304381#Comment_120304381

Anyone ?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120305088#Comment_120305088

The FBI head has said they believe it was a lab leak and dept of energy have said they believe lab leak with low confidence. Others, such as scientists, experts, etc maintain zoonotic origin. There's no consensus, the WH admits that.

Pretty much every article or news story I've read has stated that lab leak couldn't be ruled out, but that the consensus has been that it was zoonotic in nature. Which is technically correct.

There's little or no credible evidence it was man-made (which many of the conspiracies center around)

As for the conspiracy connection:

As we all know, conspiracy theorists and "mainstream media contrarians" and all the rest of that group love when they perceive anyone in authority or media has potentially made what they perceive as a mistake, because it fulfils notions that it's purposeful and systemic, which is often their belief.

Also worth pointing out that some individuals, especially of the conspiracy variety, only "trust" and place stock in the FBI when it suits. They just as easily dismiss them for lying or being incompetent or part of the conspiracy at any other time of the day - there's no consistency to any of it.

weisses

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120305162#Comment_120305162

So are the FBI and dept of energy peddling a conspiracy theory?

What is the difference between me stating

"I have assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,"

Which would label me as a conspiracy nutter

or the FBI director stating

"The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,"

Simple question

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120305225#Comment_120305225

So are the FBI and dept of energy peddling a conspiracy theory?

Not peddling, stating. The FBI head is basically saying this was a lab leak from China. If that's the case, and if China knew about it and has covered it up, that's a conspiracy by the Chinese.

Dept of energy is a bit more wishy-washy, stating it, but with low confidence.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120305225#Comment_120305225

perhaps their assessment is based on evidence they have obtained independently. you don't have that ability.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120305225#Comment_120305225

No, they are not proposing a conspiracy theory.

They are not using clues harvested from youtube videos and twitter. They are not proposing the idea to gain attention for their line of supplements or their dvds.

People have not been labeled conspiracy theorists for suggesting a lab leak. People are being labeled conspiracy theorists for suggesting that the virus was man made as a bioweapon or to sell vaccines or that it was leaked on purpose.

The FBI et al. are not proposing those things.

You are also not explaining how this fits into your conspiracy narratives.

If there is a conspiracy to discredit the idea of a lab leak, then why are the FBI not being discredited? Why they not part of the conspiracy?

The fact that the FBI is making these statements, and without an adequate explanation (or any explanation at all) of how this fits the conspiracy theory, shows that the theory is most likely not true.

realitykeeper

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304811#Comment_120304811

Well Dawww! Love the sarcasm.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120307989#Comment_120307989

I'm not so sure it is. What conspiracies do you believe are credible..

911?

Covid?

Vaccines?

The "mainstream media" is controlled?

Others?

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120305355#Comment_120305355

"...The fact that the FBI is making these statements, and without an adequate explanation (or any explanation at all) of how this fits the conspiracy theory, shows that the theory is most likely not true...."

Or they can't prove it, or reveal how they now, or perhaps its a misinformation or propaganda.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120308957#Comment_120308957

That list seems to the most common ones stuck on repeat by their supporters.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120308980#Comment_120308980

Indeed. The type of thinking also seems stock

"Don't trust the media, unless it suits"

"If I can't understand or believe something that's evidence it isn't true"

"Everyone else blindly trusts the media/government/authorities"

"I'm just asking questions"

"The views of this one expert are stronger than the collective consensus of those 99 experts"

"A mistake, discrepancy, coincidence or anomaly is evidence of the conspiracy"

"Innuendo trumps fact"

"Denial of the event is evidence of the conspiracy"

And many more, it's a spectrum. Extreme at one end (lizard people) all the way to contrarian denial on the other (counterfactual)

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120309273#Comment_120309273

Dont forget "i'm an independent thinker" as they post nothing but articles and YT vids from right wing grifters.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120309273#Comment_120309273

Don't trust the media they say, pointing out the small number of things they got wrong.

Meanwhile, what's the truth batting average on the sites they quote?

If the mainstream media get one thing wrong, DON'T TRUST THEM.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120309303#Comment_120309303

Also can't forget those who orbit and validate conspiracy theorists, not that they believe in any conspiracy theories themselves, they just want to stick it to science/skeptics/government/whatever

The new breed of fringe GOP lawmakers and Fox pundits spring to mind, catering for that whole sphere.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120309314#Comment_120309314

Well given that we're on page 67 of the 3rd or 4th thread asking for "real" conspiracy theories without any examples...

realitykeeper

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120308957#Comment_120308957

There are different theories about all of the above. Could you be specific?

Igotadose

Satirical I suppose. Seems apt for this discussion.

geospatial

In the past two decades Pfizer and it's subsideries have been found guilty of 79 offenses, with fines and penalties totalling over $10 billion. Virtually all of these offenses were in the categories of safety violations ($5.6B), off label or unapproved marketing ($3.4B) and false claims ($1.2B).

Given this history, is it reasonable to ask questions regarding this company and it's commitment to consumer safety versus corporate profits? Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest Pfizer has a history of putting corporate profits before public safety?

In 2021 a global non profit group (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency) of several hundred scientists and doctors who were just "asking questions" requested the safety data from Pfizer Covid vaccine trials from the FDA. The FDA responed that this would take 75 years. After being ignored and stonewalled they had to sue and won their case to gain access, fought all the way through multiple court cases by the FDA and Pfizer.

Is one a "conspiracy theorist" to be concerned about this lack of transparency? Surely if the Covid vaccines were "safe and effective" then both Pfizer and the FDA should be rushing out the safety data to comvince the public?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120310457#Comment_120310457

Happy to discuss further, such as the half truths in your post on the appropriate thread.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/11/19/fda-2076-vaccine-data/

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058180492/covid-vaccines-thread-banned-users-in-first-post#latest

geospatial

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120310511#Comment_120310511

There are no "half truths" in my post, if you feel there are then point them out. Your snopes article is over a year old and out of date, for example the FDA updated the number of pages to 451,000 whcih would have take 75 years to release at 500 pages a month. The courts found against the FDA and an expedidted release was ordered. The judge found the FDA's arguments for release of 500 pages a month to be ridiculous, given the public interest in this matter.

This is the appropriate thread as my question is a basic one regarding "credible conspiracy theories". Given Pfizers track record on offenses relating to product safety, mislabelling and false claims, and given the resistance to release of safety data, is it a conspiracy theory to question whether they have been transparent and ethical on the issue of Covid vaccine safety.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120310655#Comment_120310655

Does the same apply to Moderna and Novavax?

geospatial

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120310681#Comment_120310681

Yes, should apply to all Pharma/Biotech/Medical Technology companies in terms of timely release of safety data for new products.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120310857#Comment_120310857

I'm sure you have similar "evidence" for Moderna and Novavax then?

Or something similar from BioNTech prior to their partnership with Pfizer?

geospatial

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120310895#Comment_120310895

Moderna, Novavax and BioNTech don't have a similar track record of offenses and fines, although it has to be said they are much smaller than Pfizer, and for balance other large companies like Merck, J&J and GSK have similar track records to Pfizer.

My question is whether it is reasonable to expect Pharma/BioTech/Medical Technology companies to release safety data in a timely fashion for new products, in particular from companies with a proven track record of safety violations and off label/false claims violations. Over 300 global scientists and medical professionals think it is, including dozens from leading universities.

I don't believe it is a conspiracy theory for the public to request or even demand this data, and think it's reasonable to focus this effort on Pfizer given their track record and their large share of the Covid vaccine market.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120311084#Comment_120311084

So you're not questioning the safety of the Moderna or Novavax vaccines? Do you see the flaw in your argument yet?

Yes, Pfizer should be more transparent, but you're attempting to raise concern over vaccines by linking them to past transgressions from big pharma companies despite it being smaller startups who developed the most effective COVID vaccines using multiple different technologies (and billions upon billions safe injections later).

geospatial

I am questioning the safety data of all Covid vaccines, and specifically the resistance to timely release of safety data, which is why I believe all relevant companies should provide their safety data to the public in a timely manner (see my prior post, "should apply to all, etc"). In my opinion, and obviously thise who have requested the data, there should be full transparency when it comes to new medical products, especially when we are dealing with new technologies like mRNA. I fail to see how this level of transparency would not benefit the pharma companies involved.

I believe this is especially important for the leading manufacturer (by far), in particular as they have a track record of offenses involving safety and false claims. Why do you think the request from PHMPT for said safety data focussed on Pfizer? Because they are the largest supplier by far, at least in western countries.

Back to the original question, do you think it is a conspiracy theory to ask for safety data?