Why am I seeing a notification screen when sharing someone else’s post on Facebook? – Facebook Censorship

Why am I seeing a notification screen when sharing someone else’s post on Facebook?

When you share someone else’s post on Facebook, you may see a notification screen giving you more information about the content you’re sharing. Information, such as the date of the article, helps you be more aware about the content you share. The notification screen doesn’t limit your ability to post. You can still share the post if you like.

There are a few different notification screens you may see:

  • Voting and Elections: Voting in elections is a powerful way to have your voice heard. Facebook may add a label with additional information about the voting process to posts that mention elections or voting procedures. These labels may include a link to the Voting Information Center. We commonly work with election officials and nonpartisan organizations to regularly update the Voting Information Center. When sharing a post with an added voting information label, you may see a notification screen.
  • Coronavirus (COVID-19): As we face the global challenge of COVID-19, having relevant and up-to-date information is important. When you share a post about COVID-19, you may see a notification screen with the original source and when the post was first shared. You’ll also see a link to our Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information Center. These notification screens won’t appear when the original source is from government health authorities or recognized global health organizations, like the World Health Organization.
  • Outdated News: The timeliness of a news article helps you decide what to read, trust and share. You may see a notification screen when sharing an article that is more than 90 days old.
  • Public Awareness Posts: In some cases, we allow posts for public awareness that would otherwise go against our Community Standards. We do this only after weighing the public interest value of the post against the risk of harm. If you share these posts, a notification screen appears with guidance on our standards. Learn more about posts that are allowed for public awareness.
  • Independent Fact-checkers: We work with independent fact-checkers in some countries to help identify and review false news. You may see a notification screen when sharing an article that has been identified as false news by a fact-checker. A notice will also be added to your post.

If you choose to share the post:

  1. Click Continue or Share Anyway.
  2. Select how you’d like to share the post.

If you choose not to share:

  1. Click Go Back.

.

Facebook Censorship Index

.

from Creating Better World

Posted in Censorship, Facebook | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What influences the order of posts in my Facebook News Feed? – Facebook Censorship

What influences the order of posts in my Facebook News Feed?

To help connect people to the posts that matter to them most, we use a process called ranking. News Feed ranking creates a personalized and diverse stream of posts from the people, news sources, businesses and communities you’ve connected with on Facebook.

What influences ranking

Some things influence ranking more than others, and some of the most important factors include:

  • How often you interact with posts from friends, groups or Pages (friends and family are prioritized).
  • If the type of post is something you often interact with (example: photo, video, link).
  • The number of comments, likes, reactions and shares a post receives from the people and Pages that see it. Keep in mind that these posts are shared by the friends, groups or Pages you follow.
  • How recently something was posted.

Some things have a smaller influence over what you see. We may take into account signals such as how fast your internet connection is right now or what kind of phone you’re using (because this can affect how quickly things can load on your News Feed). These are just some of the thousands of signals that may be considered for News Feed ranking. Learn more about how personalized News Feed ranking works.

Why some friends and Pages are prioritized

Certain friends and Pages are prioritized in your News Feed based on your activity on Facebook or if you’ve added them to Favorites. Their posts are shown higher in your News Feed. Certain factors that have more influence for who is prioritized include, for example:

  • Your past interactions on posts of friends or Pages, like reacting to or commenting on a photo or video.
  • Things you have in common, like mutual friends or groups you both belong to.

Many other factors also influence who is prioritized. The friends and Pages that are prioritized on News Feed can change based on your activity on Facebook.

Only you can see who is prioritized in your News Feed. You can control whose posts are prioritized even higher on your News Feed by adding them to Favorites.

Manage what you see

You can control what you see from your News Feed preferences or check your privacy settings. Some of the options for managing what you see in your News Feed include:

  • Select a person or Page to add to Favorites.
  • Snooze a person, Page or group.
  • Hide or unfollow posts from people, Pages or groups.

To see what influences the order of posts you’re seeing in your News Feed:

  1. Go to the post.
  2. Click  in the top right and select Why am I seeing this post?

.

Facebook Censorship Index

.

from Creating Better World

Posted in Censorship, Facebook | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why am I seeing Related Articles below a post in News Feed on Facebook? – Facebook Censorship

Why am I seeing Related Articles below a post in News Feed on Facebook?

When independent fact-checkers write articles about a photo, video or other information, you may see their articles as Related Articles below a post in News Feed to help you find more information about the topic.

Learn more about how Facebook works with independent fact-checkers.

.

Facebook Censorship Index

.

from Creating Better World

Posted in Censorship, Facebook | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Facebook Censorship Index

Sources & Organizations

.

Specific Information

How is Facebook addressing false information through independent fact-checkers? – Facebook Censorship

How are independent fact-checkers selected on Facebook? – Facebook Censorship

Tips to Spot False News – Facebook Censorship

Why am I seeing Related Articles below a post in News Feed on Facebook? – Facebook Censorship

What influences the order of posts in my Facebook News Feed? – Facebook Censorship

Why am I seeing a notification screen when sharing someone else’s post on Facebook? – Facebook Censorship

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Censorship, Facebook | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

How are independent fact-checkers selected on Facebook? – Facebook Censorship

How are independent fact-checkers selected on Facebook? Independent fact-checkers on Facebook are signatories to the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network Code of Principles. Independent fact-checkers investigate stories in a journalistic process meant to result in establishing the truth or falsity of the story

.

Facebook Censorship Index

.

from Creating Better World

Posted in Censorship, Facebook | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

How is Facebook addressing false information through independent fact-checkers? – Facebook Censorship

How is Facebook addressing false information through independent fact-checkers?

We’re committed to fighting the spread of false information on Facebook. We use both technology and human review to remove fake accounts, promote information literacy and disrupt the financial incentives of spammers. In certain countries, we also work with independent fact-checkers who are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network to help identify and review false information.

Reducing the Distribution of False Information

  • Identifying false information: We identify information that may be false using signs like feedback from people on Facebook. Fact-checkers may also identify stories to review on their own.
  • Reviewing stories: Fact-checkers will review stories, check their facts, and rate their accuracy.
  • Showing false stories lower in News Feed: If a fact-checker rates a story as false, it will appear lower in News Feed. This significantly reduces the number of people who see it.
  • Taking action against repeat offenders: Pages and websites that repeatedly share false information will see their distribution reduced and their ability to advertise removed.
  • Using technology to find the same false information: Each piece of information might have thousands or millions of copies across Facebook. Those copies are nearly identical to the original information, but there might be small differences like a different photo crop or filter. We use machine-learning technology to detect these copies so that fact-checkers can focus on new information.

Providing More Information if you See False Information

  • Providing more context on false information: When fact-checkers write articles with more information about a story, you’ll see a notice where you can click to see why.
  • Notifying people when they’ve shared false information: You’ll receive a notification if you try to share a story or have shared one in the past that’s been rated false by fact-checkers. Page Admins will also be notified if they share stories rated false.
  • Rating options for fact-checkers: Learn more about rating options for independent fact-checkers as well as some guidelines and examples for content that is likely to fit within each rating.

Giving You More Tools to Identify and Give Feedback on False Information

  • Learn how to spot false information. Knowing what to look out for can help you make more informed decisions about what to read, trust, and share.
  • Provide feedback on stories you think are false. Let us know if you think a story is false. This is one of the signs we use when trying to identify false information.

.

Facebook Censorship Index

.

from Creating Better World

Posted in Censorship, Facebook | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Tips to Spot False News – Facebook Censorship

Tips to Spot False News

taken from Facebook August 16, 2021

We are committed to reducing the spread of false news on Facebook. We remove fake accounts and disrupt economic incentives for people that share misinformation. We also use signals, like feedback from our community, to identify stories that may be false. In countries where we work with independent third-party fact checkers, stories rated as false by those fact-checkers are shown lower in News Feed. If Pages or domains repeatedly create or share misinformation, we significantly reduce their distribution and remove their advertising rights. We’re also working to empower people to decide for themselves what to read, trust and share by giving them more context on stories with tools like related articles Learn more in “Facing Facts” a short film about our fight against misinformation, or Inside Feed, a site dedicated to shedding light on Facebook’s people and products.As we work to limit the spread, here are some tips on what to look out for:

  1. Be skeptical of headlines. False news stories often have catchy headlines in all caps with exclamation points. If shocking claims in the headline sound unbelievable, they probably are.
  2. Look closely at the link. A phony or look-alike link may be a warning sign of false news. Many false news sites mimic authentic news sources by making small changes to the link. You can go to the site to compare the link to established sources.
  3. Investigate the source. Ensure that the story is written by a source that you trust with a reputation for accuracy. If the story comes from an unfamiliar organization, check their “About” section to learn more.
  4. Watch for unusual formatting. Many false news sites have misspellings or awkward layouts. Read carefully if you see these signs.
  5. Consider the photos. False news stories often contain manipulated images or videos. Sometimes the photo may be authentic, but taken out of context. You can search for the photo or image to verify where it came from.
  6. Inspect the dates. False news stories may contain timelines that make no sense, or event dates that have been altered.
  7. Check the evidence. Check the author’s sources to confirm that they are accurate. Lack of evidence or reliance on unnamed experts may indicate a false news story.
  8. Look at other reports. If no other news source is reporting the same story, it may indicate that the story is false. If the story is reported by multiple sources you trust, it’s more likely to be true.
  9. Is the story a joke? Sometimes false news stories can be hard to distinguish from humor or satire. Check whether the source is known for parody, and whether the story’s details and tone suggest it may be just for fun.
  10. Some stories are intentionally false. Think critically about the stories you read, and only share news that you know to be credible..

.

Facebook Censorship Index

.

from Creating Better World

Posted in Censorship, Facebook | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Afghanistan – Alternative Media

Click on any publication for current and past articles on Afghanistan

.

Against the Current    

Alternet  

American Prospect    

Black Agenda Report   

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists  

Common Dreams   

Consortium News  

Counter Currents

Counter Punch  

Covert Action  

Daily Kos    

Defense Monitor  

Democracy Now   

Dissent   

Dollars and Sense   

E Environmental Magazine   

Electronic Intifada    

Extra!  

Foreign Policy  

Foreign Policy In Focus  

Global Research   

Gray Zone  

Hightower Lowdown   

In These Times  (search on site)

Information Clearing house  

Intercept    

International Socialist Review  

Intrepid Report   

Jacobin Magazine   

KPFA  

Left Turn  

Left Voice    

Loud & Clear

Making Contact   

Middle East Report  Search on site 

Mint Press  

Monthly Review  search on site 

Mother Jones   

Multinational Monitor

NACLA Report on the Americas   

Nation

New Internationalist

New Republic  

Nuclear Resister 

Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM)  

Peace in Our Times   No search on site  

People’s Dispatch    

Poor Magazine  

Popular Resistance  

Progressive

Progressive Populist 

Project Censored    

Quaker Action   

Raw Story    

Reader Supported News   

Reason    

Roots Action   

Russia Today    

Salon  

Shadow Proof   

Socialist Action  

Socialist Viewpoint 

Sojourners Magazine  

Strategic Culture   

Talking Points Memo     

Terrain  

Tom Dispatch  

Truth Dig  

Truthout  

Utne   

Washington Monthly   

Washington Report    

World Press Review  (Search on site) 

Yes Magazine   

Young Turks (no search)  

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Afghanistan, Taliban | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Gain of Function Research – And The Next Pandemic

Gain of Function Research – And The Next Pandemic

Should scientists risk new pandemics by enhancing dangerous pathogens?

A highly controversial type of research conducted in a handful of labs has the ability to create new pandemics. Termed “Gain of Function,” these experiments increase the ability of dangerous pathogens to spread and infect hosts, or boost the severity of the disease they inflict. There is no doubt that lab accidents involving such research could spark a pandemic.

Now that the world has witnessed some of the enormous damage that a pandemic can deliver, it is an excellent time to consider whether national or global bans on Gain of Function research should be implemented.

Gain of Function Research and the Risk of the Next Pandemic Report

Why are we creating new deadly pathogens?

As the world still battles Covid 19, scientists are looking for other viruses and bacteria that could trigger future pandemics. Not only are they studying these pathogens to see if and when they could naturally present a risk, they are using genetic engineering and other methods to create new variants that would help them realize their pandemic potential.

This “gain-of-function” research increases the capacity of a pathogen to infect hosts, or to boost the severity of the disease it inflicts. One controversial experiment, for example, enhanced the transmissibility of the H5N1 avian flu. In its natural state, this highly lethal virus kills up to 52% of the people it infects. Fortunately, very few have caught the disease since it requires prolonged contact with infected birds. Gain-of-function experiments, however, created an airborne version that may spread easily between humans. If such an enhanced pathogen escaped the lab, it could decimate the population.

Contesting the scientific justification for enhancing pathogens

Proponents justify the risks of gain-of-function research by claiming that it can help us prevent or respond to future pandemics. Knowing which mutations confer pandemic potential to a virus or bacterium, they say, can aid in pathogen surveillance. They further claim that vaccines can then be developed in advance to target those strains.

Critics point out that gain-of-function research has not produced the touted benefits. Furthermore, experimental results often differ significantly from what was predicted. In various gain-of-function experiments, for example, when “increased fitness” was predicted, fitness was actually crippled; when “elevated virulence” was predicted, the level of virulence “remained unaffected;” and alterations designed to allow a pathogen transmission between mammals simply did not happen.

Researchers working with existing pathogens usually know how the virus is transmitted and how deadly it is. This allows them to conduct an Executive SummaryExecutive Summary. informed risk analysis. The unpredictable nature of the mutations in gain-of-function experiments and the novel pathogens they produce have unknown properties, making risk analysis much more difficult.

A laboratory accident could spark a pandemic

Any benefit of gain-of-function research must be weighed against the potentially catastrophic risks. Although high security labs are typically used for such experiments, their track record is not encouraging. There are reports of hundreds of accidents at such labs, some of which resulted in personnel becoming infected. Accidents have been recorded at facilities with the highest security that deal with the most dangerous pathogens. Furthermore, there is substantial underreporting of accidents and an unwillingness to share research results.

Alternatives to gain-of-function research provide valuable knowledge without the risk

Many scientists argue that the risk of creating a pandemic far outweighs the benefits of gain-of-function research. Fortunately, there are other types of research that can help prevent pandemics or prepare for treatments in advance. The Center for Communicable Diseases recommends spending money on the “rest of the portfolio for flu preparedness” rather than gain-of-function.

The difficulty of selecting ethical standards

Medical research has specific ethical standards for using human subjects. While gain-of-function research does not experiment on people directly, its outcomes could affect whole populations. Some people therefore suggest treating the population as the subjects.

A primary criterion for human subjects is that they give consent. After what the world went through during COVID 19, we can safely assume that public opinion would be vehemently opposed to any action that could risk another pandemic.

A second requirement is that ethical medical research must “yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods.” Many scientists are convinced that other, safer methods can produce the sought-after knowledge.

The third requirement says that research design must be based “on the results of a knowledge of the natural history of the disease.” But gain-of-function research can produce novel diseases with no natural history.

Emergency Legislation

Should scientific freedom to do these extremely high-risk experiments take precedence over creating a global threat, or should gain-of-function research be banned?

When scientists reported that they created an airborne version of the deadly H5N1 avian flu, it produced an outcry from experts and others around the world. The U.S. government imposed a partial moratorium on gain-of-function research in 2014, which was lifted in 2017.

The world has witnessed the enormous impact of a global pandemic. But the death rate of H5N1 is estimated to be up to 24 times that of the COVID-19 virus. The gamble of gain-of-function has never been clearer.

Such research on potentially pandemic pathogens has not yielded reliable results that benefit society. Even the strictest biosafety measures have not mitigated human error. And there are viable research alternatives that have not been exhausted.

Conclusion

It would therefore be reasonable to press for a global ban on this type of gain-of-function research. Intentionally creating highly contagious variants of a disease should be deemed unnecessary and irresponsible.

.

Coronavirus Covid-19 Research History – Index

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in coronavirus, Covid-19, Gain of Function, pandemic | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Gain-of-Function’ Hall of Shame

‘Gain-of-Function’ Hall of Shame

The biological weapons industrial complex, the bureaucrats who fund it, the corporations that shape it and the existential risk that genetic engineering and synthetic biology pose to us all

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an ongoing project. Check back frequently as we add new profiles to our Gain-of-Function Hall of Shame.

Our search for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 has led us and others—including some of the world’s top independent scientists and investigators—to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Below the surface of the various COVID-19 origin narratives being circulated—by the Chinese government, the Trump Administration, Big Pharma and the corporate-owned mass media—there is a secretive and dangerous labyrinth of money, politics and militarism that connects Wuhan and its sister biowar/biodefense/gain-of-function laboratories across the U.S. and the world.

There are hundreds of labs—in the U.S., China and around the world—that collect and manipulate viruses, including coronaviruses, and bacteria, fungi, and other toxins that cause disease and death. COVID-19 could have come from any number of them—so could the next pandemic.

In these labs, scientists use genetic engineering and synthetic biology to give pathogens new functions, making them more lethal, contagious, infectious or resistant to treatment.

This research is euphemistically called gain-of-function research.

But we should call it what it is: biological weapons—or “gain-of-threat”—research.

If the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) were strengthened, labs whose work on coronaviruses could be used to make biological weapons, would be required to disclose their research and BWC investigators would have the power to search them. 

With BWC enforcement, there could be a full investigation into the origins of the novel coronavirus. Without this scrutiny, if SARS-CoV-2 did come from a lab, it would be nearly impossible to prove.

As we follow the evidence—and follow the money—we come face to face with a cast of out-of-control Mad Scientists, militarists and biotech/bio-pharmaceutical entrepreneurs. 

Which of these self-serving characters brought us SARS-CoV-2, which we believe was an accidental, rather than a deliberate release? And who will be responsible for unleashing the next, possibly deadlier, weaponized viruses, bacteria and gene-altered microorganisms in the future?

PROFILE #1: Dr. Christian ‘Chris’ Hassell

Any scientific lab work that involves making pathogens more lethal, contagious, infectious, or resistant to treatment, even when done, ostensibly, for defensive purposes or medical countermeasures development, is really too risky to do at all—especially when you consider that 30 years’ worth of gain-of-function research has produced no vaccine, and no cure for a pandemic.

But perhaps an even better reason to stop experiments that could be used to create biological weapons, or the next pandemic, is the large number of high-profile—some accidental, some nefarious—releases of deadly pathogens from U.S. labs.

One U.S. government scientist who’s been linked, at least indirectly, with one gain-of-function research lab failure is Dr. Christian Hassell. Yet somehow, Hassell still holds the power to secretly exert major control over the so-called “biodefense” industry—by deciding which research gets approved and which corporations receive government contracts.

Read “Christian ‘Risks-Be-Damned’ Hassell: Pushing Dangerous, Taxpayer-Funded Genetic Engineering and Gain-of-Function Research”

PROFILE #2: Dr. Robert Kadlec

Dr. Robert Kadlec’s title is Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response (ASPR) for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. In that role, Kadlec oversees a multi-billion-dollar stockpile of medical countermeasures to “defend” the American people against any biological threat, whether military, criminal, natural or accidental.

The stockpile overseen by Kadlec used to be housed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. But Kadlec fought to put it under his control.

In a normal year, this would mean Kadlec managing a budget of more than $2 billion. But with COVID-19 this year, Kadlec is spending $11.5 billion just on companies’ efforts to develop, manufacture, store and deliver new vaccines.

Kadlec’s responsibilities don’t end with his role at HHS. He also plays a big role in overseeing all federal biodefense activities and budgets. And he has a long track record of doling out big contracts to his buddies in the vaccine industry.

Read ‘Dr. Robert Kadlec: How the Czar of Biowarfare Funnels Billions to Friends in Vaccine Industry’

PROFILE #3: Dr. Ralph Baric

Guess what year this ScienceDaily headline appeared:

“New SARS-Like Virus Can Jump Directly from Bats to Humans, No Treatment Available.”  

If you guessed 2020, you’re wrong. The article was published in 2015. The source was the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

That’s where scientist Ralph Baric, Ph.D, and a team that included Baric’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) colleague, Shi Zhengli, used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to create a “new bat SARS-like virus . . . that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.”

Baric is known as the Coronavirus Hunter. Zhengli’s nickname is Bat Woman. The two are scientists whose work involves collecting samples of the nearly 5,000 coronaviruses in bat populations and manipulating them for the sole purpose of making them more infectious to humans.

Ostensibly, the research Baric and Zhengli conduct is intended to help scientists get ahead of any coronavirus that might have the potential to emerge as a human pathogen. The reality is this: There is little evidence that this research has prepared us to meet the challenges of the current COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, there are suspicions that the research may have caused the virus.

There’s also ample evidence that Baric has strong ties to Big Pharma—thanks to laws that allow researchers at publicly funded universities to commercialize their research.

Read ‘Dr. ‘Coronavirus Hunter’ Ralph Baric: Preparing Us for a Pandemic? Or Putting Us in Peril of One?’

PROFILE #4: Peter Daszak

Peter Daszak is president of EcoHealth Alliance, a top scientific collaborator and a grantwriter for virus hunters and gain-of-function/dual-use researchers, in labs both military and civilian.

On behalf of the U.S. government, often the military, Daszak and his teams scour the globe for animal pathogens, then bring them back to high-containment laboratories where they catalog, investigate and use genetic engineering and synthetic biology to make the pathogens more infectious, contagious, lethal or drug-resistant.

Daszak works in labs controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense, in countries in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa. Many of these labs are staffed by former biological weapons scientists. (See Arms Watch’s reports).

Daszak and other gain-of-function researchers justify their experiments this way: If/When an outbreak of a new virus occurs, they can compare it to the ones in their labs, and maybe glean how the novel virus emerged.

Critics of virus hunting say scientists like Daszak could make a greater contribution to human health by going after the viruses that commonly infect humans, not the ones that never have.

But that logic doesn’t prevent Daszak from pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars to fund his gain-of-function experiments.

Do Daszak and his collaborators do it just for the money? Or do they have a bigger agenda? And why is the Pentagon constructing new laboratories around the globe, for the “consolidation and securing of pathogens?”

Read ‘Peter ‘Show Me the Money’ Daszak Pulls in Big Bucks, through EcoHealth Alliance, for Risky Virus ‘Research’

PROFILE #5: Shi Zhengli

She’s known as China’s “Bat Woman.” Shi Zhengli is a virus hunter and microbiologist, and director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

She also plays a central role in a whodunnit that may ultimately prove impossible to solve.

Shi’s work involves collecting bat viruses and using techniques of genetic engineering and synthetic biology to enable these viruses to infect human beings. 

Since the Biological Weapons Convention took effect, what scientists like Shi do has been called “gain-of-function” research or “dual-use research of concern” (DURC).

In other words, Shi, and other scientists like her, are in the business of weaponizing viruses by genetically engineering or otherwise altering them to make them more lethal, and more easily transmitted, to humans.

Did Shi have a hand in creating the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing the current COVID-19 pandemic?

Read ‘Shi Zhengli: Weaponizing Coronaviruses, with Pentagon Funding, at a Chinese Military Lab’

PROFILE #6: Anthony Fauci

Dr. Anthony Fauci is a medical doctor who has been the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984. He’s best known in his current role as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans put their faith in Fauci. His bedside manner―straightforward, modest and unassuming―made it easy to warm up to this grandfatherly nerd. Inspiring trust that he was unbiased, non-partisan and strictly scientific, he quickly became “America’s Favorite Doctor.”

With two in three Americans (68%) saying they trust him in a September 2020 poll, Fauci is still considered to be a more reliable source information than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (67%), Dr. Deborah Birx, the Coronavirus Response Coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force (53%), Joe Biden (52%) and President Trump (40%).

For Democrats, especially, Fauci is a sacred cow; their reverence for him has grown to 86 percent, up from 76 percent in April. Among Republicans, though, his support has slipped to 48 percent.

No doubt, this skepticism is due to the brave work of scientist Judy Mikovits (Plague of Corruption), filmmaker Mikki Willis (Plandemic) and Dr. Joseph Mercola.

But, the ease with which Fauci manages to make Trump look bad, while seemingly taking pains not to do so, clearly adds to his charm for Democrats while arousing the suspicions of Republicans.

Really, there’s no reason why the search for the truth about the origin of COVID-19 should be a political issue.

Here are 6 reasons why we should all question our faith in Fauci.

Read ‘Anthony Fauci: Eerily Predicted the COVID-19 Pandemic While Funding the Experiments that Likely Caused It’

PROFILE #7: Bill Gates

The problem with their natural-origin theory of SARS-CoV-2 is that the scientists pedalling it have no explanation for how the pandemic emerged in Wuhan, when they say they found RaTG13 seven years ago in Tongguan, a town in Mojiang County, Yunnan Province, 1000 miles away from Wuhan.

New information about RaTG13 shows that the cave where it was first found in 2013 is where 6 men got pneumonia in 2012.

The significance of this cannot be overstated. GOF Hall of Famers Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak had previously tried to bury the link between RaTG13 and the sick men, because it is powerful circumstantial evidence that SARS-CoV-2 emerged not from a natural spillover event but from a lab accident (or, in the worst-case scenario, an intentional release) at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

That is the most plausible inference to make from the available facts. (For more information, please consult the reading list compiled by U.S. Right to Know, “What are the origins of SARS-CoV-2? What are the risks of gain-of-function research?”)

What these facts don’t explain is why.

Why was (and is) this work funded by the U.S. government through Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency? Why was it allowed by President Trump’s regulators at the Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Robert Kadlec and his assistant Christian Hassell, when the previous administration under President Obama had placed a moratorium on the funding of this research?

In his Plandemic series, filmmaker Mikki Willis has tried to answer these questions by following the money to see who stood to benefit from the reckless (or intentional) release of a pandemic virus.

Bill Gates tops his list.

Read: ‘Bill Gates: The Billionaire Who Puts Vaccine Profiteering Above Human Life’

PROFILE #8: Scott Dowell

When Anthony Fauci decided to fund research on the H5N1 bird flu virus that was akin to weaponization, Gates directed grants from his foundation to support Fauci’s hand-picked scientists and their gain-of-function experiments. Gates has even funded experiments at the Pentagon’s military labs in foreign countries.

Gates now employs the U.S.’s top virus hunter.

This report focuses on Dr. Scott F. Dowell, the Gates Foundation’s deputy director for “surveillance and epidemiology.”

Dr. Dowell knows all about the U.S. government’s investments in the collection and manipulation of deadly viruses, because he’s a virus hunter himself, having led global infectious disease surveillance at the CDC for 21 years (1993-2014).

In 2003, Dowell was part of the international team that isolated and identified the novel coronavirus associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, the first SARS-CoV virus. 

But, it is his 2005 discovery, “Probable person-to-person transmission of avian influenza A (H5N1),” that connects him to the controversy over so-called “gain-of-function” experiments, also known as “dual-use research of concern.”

Dowell’s work closely mirrors that of the virus hunters who are likely responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read: ‘Scott Dowell, Bill Gates’ Virus Hunter’

.

Coronavirus Covid-19 Research History – Index

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in coronavirus, Covid-19, Gain of Function, pandemic | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment