Last spring, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation launched a major news campaign to attack The Epoch Times. The network shed a lot of “news” items on the subject, but the main attack was on April 29, 2020, in an article originally posted on a website titled “Racist and Inciting.” did. Upset by the Epoch Times, Canadians claim that China is behind the virus, as a biological weapon. The title largely misunderstood the content of that issue of the newspaper.
The CBC has repeatedly broadcast false claims by delivery personnel that they do not want to deliver newspapers that the virus is “part of a biological warfare plan by the Chinese people.” This was a mistake, and there was no such claim in a treatise focusing on the Chinese Communist regime rather than the Chinese people. CBC Anchor repeatedly claimed that the Epoch Times was spreading conspiracy theories to boldly question where the virus came from outside the Wuhan fresh market.
The Epoch Times was blamed by the CBC for spreading “conspiracy theory” and not trusting it. In fact, in many of the articles published in that issue, some of the opinions suggested that the cause of the outbreak of the virus needed to be investigated, and nothing was excluded. That was enough to provoke the CBC’s anger. The network then issued ambiguous corrections to misleading headlines, especially the terribly inaccurate accusations of “biological weapons.” However, the damage was great, and Epoch was portrayed as a provider of “conspiracy theory.”
Around the same time, federal health minister Patty Haidu blamed reporters for dare to ask if China may not be honest about the number of deaths from COVID-19. Hajdu accused the reporter of “participating in conspiracy theory.” No reporter even had the courage to ask about the possible viral origin of the Wuhan Institute.
The American Legacy Media has taken the same policy. Anything that suggested that the virus did not come from the “wet market” was considered an alt-right conspiracy theory. All of this was deeply linked to the media’s anti-Trump strategy, which by that time had clearly overtaken the pursuit of truth.
But now, suddenly, they changed their minds and decided that asking a legitimate question about the possibility that the virus had occurred in the laboratory did not “promote conspiracy theory” after all. In fact, the laboratory. Possibility of origin has always been a legitimate subject of investigation. It was considered unacceptable because it contradicted someone’s political agenda.
Questions about the origin of the virus are just one example of a science-related question that has been declared off limits. The science of virus spread has also been distorted for political purposes. Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa protests and riots begin, with hundreds of thousands gathering nearby without government resistance. Nowhere was this more obvious than when I was allowed. Enforcement and active ticketing.
Some politicians, such as Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, have participated in BLM protests against the rules of social distance. Massive BLM protest at Parliament Hill. Real science was thrown under the political bus.
Meanwhile, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been overwhelmed by shutting down sites that suggest that the virus may have occurred in Wuhan. But apparently the country’s most important virology laboratory. It was worth investigating that there was, and Chinese scientists boasted that they were the world leaders in testing viruses from horseshoe bats.
It is now known that the possibility that the coronavirus occurred at the Wuhan Virology Institute was not a “conspiracy theory” at all. In fact, the fact that all inquiries about a fully understandable speculation that the virus may have leaked from the lab was actively shut down is a really rare part of this story, and probably close to a real conspiracy.
The best evidence seems to indicate that the Wuhan Institute is the source of the virus, but we don’t know how it happened. Perhaps we will never know. The point is that we should have been able to discuss the issue. We should have been able to ask a question.
We have been denied those rights by minor players such as CBC and Patty Hajdu, as well as by CNN, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, The New York Times, Democratic politicians and almost everyone else. It is the governing body of North American discourse today, and all simply declare the subject off limits. Accounts were frozen, thoughtful people were labeled as “conspiracy theorists,” and their careers were destroyed. That’s because some high-ranking people (although I don’t know who they are) have decided not to discuss the subject.
And the same censorship and obfuscation applies to many other issues surrounding the virus. Does the face mask work? Are treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine worthwhile? Does lockdown save or kill lives? Should people infected in the past be vaccinated? Should my child be vaccinated? There are thousands of questions about legitimate science or quasi-science that you need to ask.
When the protests and riots of BLM and Antifa began after George Floyd’s death in May 2020, it was unpleasant that science was overwhelmed by politics, except for the most deceived of us. It became clear to. Hundreds of thousands of people went out into the streets, met before and after coffee shops and apartments, socialized with each other, but opposed by the same authorities who threatened to criminalize the general public if they worshiped. Wasn’t there at all. each other.
That was when it became completely clear that science was corrupt by politics. In fact, this pandemic has done a lot of damage to many institutions, but perhaps none have suffered as much as science. Perhaps never before has there been so much distrust of doctors and scientists as it is today, but for good reason.
Perhaps it’s time to go back and ask what scientific research is. Science is by what Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, CNN and CBC executives consider politically favorable at this time. Should it really be dominated? Does it really make sense to set a flawed person like Dr. Fouch as some sort of priesthood, or is science worth more? Is not it?
The scientific revolution, which began in Europe about 600 years ago, would have been around the time when today’s high-tech, media, and politicians had faceless secret societies (where they could unilaterally declare questions they didn’t like to keep out). , Did not happen. The example in Wuhan’s lab is a perfect example. The debate over legitimate questions was simply closed because it contradicted someone’s politics.
This censorship alliance of tech, media and political agents will not change immediately. So what should we do?
In fact, it’s done. Despite censorship efforts, the Epoch Times’ question about the origin of the virus is one example of what to do. Hundreds of other independent news and information sites are examples. People need to keep asking questions, ignoring the efforts of large corporations to shut them down.
So did the virus come from the fresh market or laboratories? If it came out of the lab, was it accidentally leaked or was it deliberately leaked? Scientists said their research was fatal. Did you try to hide the results of the function acquisition research?
I don’t know the answer to these and many other questions. But we can only find the answer if we can ask the question.
Brian Giesbrecht is a former judge and senior researcher at the Frontier Center for Public Policy.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.