• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Conspiracy Theories & Claims

eziofan said:
Even more importantly. who will empty his bins.......
Click to expand...
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone is responsible for over 88 per cent of the total amount donated by philanthropic foundations to the WHO. Other contributors include the Bloomberg Family Foundation (3.5 per cent), the Wellcome Trust (1.1 per cent) and the Rockefeller Foundation (0.8 per cent).
 
brownmane said:
What my comment refers to the fact that blanket statements are being made to instill fear without any factual information to back up the claims. If you can't show the proof, then the claim is moot.
Click to expand...
Let's look at the actual SOURCE document shall we? this excerpt you're "scrutinizing" is meaningless fluff.
British Parliament's 17 page thoughts about it: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9550/CBP-9550.pdf
And the 32 pages of the actual proposed treaty itself: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf

Quite frankly... a lot of the provisions here... are things that are fine... if you actually trust WHO with your life. But... after the COVID-19 stuff... I see them as corrupt bureaucrats who care more about filling their pockets than public health.

This document is of course political double-speak written in legalese, so It's easy to mis-interpret it if you don't pay very close attention. Here's a few things I found reading the actual draft copy that are, to me, massive red flags:

from page 11 in the PDF:
4. Equity – The absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences, including in their capacities, among and within countries, including between groups of people, whether those groups are defined socially, economically, demographically, geographically or by other dimensions of inequality, is central to equity. Effective pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery cannot be achieved without political will and commitments in addressing the structural challenges in inequitable access to fair, equitable and timely access to affordable, safe and efficacious pandemic-related products and services, essential health services, information and social support, as well as tackling the inequities in terms of technology, health workforce, infrastructure and financing, among other aspects.
Click to expand...
Um... how the heck do you actually implement this... on a GLOBAL scale without having the WHO either spend stupid amounts of money... that is donated by the UN members, or... effectively seize control of the health care system?

6. Transparency – The effective prevention of, preparedness for and response to pandemics depends on transparent, open and timely sharing, access to and disclosure of accurate information, data and other relevant elements that may come to light (including biological samples, genomic sequence data and clinical trial results), for risk assessment and control measures, and development of pandemic-related products and services, notably through a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach, based on, and guided by, the best-available scientific evidence, consistent with national, regional and international privacy and data protection rules, regulations and laws
Click to expand...
Um.. yeah.. the political double speak is strong with this one. but it's talking about deciding what is best and making that WHO's purview.

Then we have on page 23 Article 17, section 1A sounds great! 1b on the other hand.... is exactly what people were talking about when they said this wants to give them the sole control over what constitutes "mis-information".

This is not to say that none of it is good... page 16 in particular sounds worthwhile.
 
brownmane said:
So, to what do you object?

This?
Article 3 Principles

The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons

This?
Article 4 Responsible authorities

each State Party should inform WHO about the establishment of its National Competent Authority responsible for overall implementation of the IHR that will be recognized and held accountable

Article 5 Surveillance

the State Party may request a further extension not exceeding two years from the Director-General, who shall make the decision refer the issue to World Health Assembly which will then take a decision on the same

WHO shall collect information regarding events through its surveillance activities

This?
Article 6 Notification

No sharing of genetic sequence data or information shall be required under these Regulations.

This?
Article 9: Other Reports

reports from sources other than notifications or consultations

Before taking any action based on such reports, WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring

This?
Article 10 Verification

whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned.

This?
Article 11 Exchange of information

WHO shall facilitate the exchange of information between States Parties and ensure that the Event Information Site For National IHR Focal Points offers a secure and reliable platform

Parties referred to in those provisions, shall not make this information generally available to other States Parties, until such time as when:

(e) WHO determines it is necessary that such information be made available to other States Parties to make informed, timely risk assessments.

===============

I don't see that these statements are infringing on any country's sovereignty. Especially as Article 10 states that though countries are encouraged to participate, WHO recognizes each country's views, and Article 9 states the WHO will consult with and try to verify information from the state party that the alleged event is occurring.

Also, to note, Article 11 appears to have been abbreviated as the list of conditions starts at "e".

And who exactly are invested in WHO and what financial investments are these parties involved in?
Click to expand...

Gates’s reported investment in CureVac, alone, may have already delivered tens of millions of dollars in shareholder value for the nonprofit Gates Foundation. Even though Trump’s bid for CureVac failed, the company’s stock skyrocketed 400 percent just two days after going public in August.


Revelations of the Gates Foundation’s financial stake in Covid-19, which Bill Gates does not appear to have publicly disclosed in dozens of recent media appearances, speak to broader criticisms about the lack of transparency in the foundation’s increasingly central role in the pandemic.


“Who are they accountable to? They don’t even have a governance structure that’s clear,” notes Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy adviser to Doctors Without Borders. “Increasingly, I see less information coming from the Gates Foundation. They don’t answer most of our questions. They don’t make their technical staff available for discussions with us when we’re trying to learn more about their technical strategy [on Covid] and how they’re prioritizing certain things.”


And Gates’s priorities in developing and distributing a Covid vaccine, Elder says, are increasingly the world’s priorities, as multilateral institutions like the World Health Organization have ceded leadership to a group of public-private partnerships where Gates provides key funding. These organizations, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, are working with the WHO to develop “the largest and most diverse Covid-19 vaccine portfolio in the world,” which they hope can deliver billions of vaccine doses in the year ahead, including to many poor countries.

James Love, director of the NGO Knowledge Ecology International, says the foundation’s decades of work on vaccines, along with its sprawling financial ties, allowed it to assert influence early in the pandemic.

“He had enough money and enough presence in the area for a long enough period of time to be positioned as the first mover and the most influential mover. So people just relied upon his people and his institutions,” says Love, “In a pandemic, when there is a vacuum of leadership, people that move fast and seem to know what they’re doing, they just acquire a lot of power. And he did that in this case.”

Gates’s leadership in the pandemic has been widely, almost universally, praised, with The New York Times calling him a “vocal counterweight to President Trump,” and Madonna making a million-dollar donation to support the foundation’s work. But because Gates is not an elected representative or public official, the details of his far-reaching influence—and finances—have largely eluded public scrutiny.

“You have an enormous amount of power that affects everyone around the globe, and there should be some accountability, some transparency,” says Love. “People are not asking unreasonable things. It’s a charity.… [We’re asking], ‘Can you explain what you’re doing, for example? Can you show us what these contracts look like?’ Particularly since they’re using their money to influence policies that involve our money.”

The Gates Foundation declined requests for interviews and did not respond to detailed questions sent by e-mail, including about its investments in pharmaceutical companies working on Covid.

Love and other critics say a key role Gates has played in the pandemic has been elevating the pharmaceutical industry—for example, pushing the University of Oxford to deliver its leading Covid-19 vaccine platform into the hands of Big Pharma. The resulting partnership with AstraZeneca had another effect, as Bloomberg and Kaiser Health News recently reported, changing the university’s distribution model from an open-license platform, designed to make its vaccine freely available for any manufacturer, to an exclusive license controlled by AstraZeneca.

Gates had the leverage to push the university, Bloomberg reports, because the foundation is one of the founders and largest funders of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which in turn funds the University of Oxford’s vaccine development (to the tune of some $384 million). The Gates Foundation has also directly given hundreds of millions of dollars to the university through charitable grants for a variety of projects—including previous funding to the university’s Jenner Institute, which is developing Oxford’s Covid vaccine.


Oxford and AstraZeneca have made public promises about forgoing profits and providing equitable access to their vaccine, if it is successful, but neither organization would provide details or documentation about this plan. Other companies have made similar humanitarian pledges even as they have pursued a traditional business model—based on exclusive licenses—that critics say is designed to generate profits, not promote equitable access.

Jörg Schaaber, executive director of the German advocacy group BUKO Pharma-Kampagne, sees the Gates Foundation as having an ideological investment in this business model, pointing to many of the foundation’s senior staff who come from the pharmaceutical industry, including the president of Gates’s global health program. Other critics note how the Gates Foundation’s endowment could benefit from the foundation pushing Covid vaccine development toward exclusive licenses.

“If we change the way in which you regulate the industry, or the ways in which you want medicines or vaccines to be produced and delivered,” says K.M. Gopakumar, legal adviser to the Third World Network, who is based in India, “it’s definitely going to affect these companies’ business model—and also the investments of Gates Foundation. So they are using their money to reinforce the status quo.”

Gates himself describes his foundation as intimately involved in the partnership between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford.

“Every week we’re talking with AstraZeneca about, okay, what’s going on in India, what’s going on in China, and so that we can get, assuming that the Phase Two data and eventually the Phase Three data is promising, that we’re ready to go with that,” Gates noted in a press briefing in June—one of many interactions with the media where he seems to describe his foundation as, essentially, leading the global pandemic response.

“Our foundation has a lot of vaccine expertise and deep relationships with the manufacturers, and so, we’ve taken our staff and now are looking at each of these [potential vaccine] constructs and the data and making sure that for the ones that are the most promising, there is a plan to have multiple factories in Asia, multiple factories in the Americas, multiple factories in Europe…. We understand which of these vaccines we can scale up the production, and I’m hopeful that it will be at that large number, because the cooperation from the pharma companies, of saying, ‘yes, you can use my factory to make someone else’s vaccine,’ we’re getting a very good response to that, and that’s really unprecedented.”

During Gates’s remarks, he made no mention of his foundation’s investment in any pharmaceutical companies working on Covid. Similarly, in an August interview with Wired, the former head of Microsoft said that if he were infected with Covid, he would want to be prescribed the therapeutic drug Remdesivir—failing to mention his foundation’s stock position in the drug’s owner, Gilead, according to the charity’s most recent tax return, from 2018. (The foundation refused to provide details about its current investment portfolio.)

Journalistic norms require disclosure of conflicts of interest. So do the prevailing rules in science, but even when Gates enters the scientific discourse—for example in the commentary he penned in the New England Journal of Medicine, prescribing what he thought government leaders should be doing to tackle Covid—he does not disclose the details of his financial ties. Gates filled out the journal’s required conflict-of-interest form, but simply listed his conflicts as “numerous”—giving readers no sense of the size, scope, or type of his financial stake in the pandemic.

Lisa Bero, professor of medicine and public health at the University of Colorado, says authors have to provide details of their financial conflicts of interest, even if it means listing dozens of companies—which is not unheard of among authors in the New England Journal of Medicine. The journal did not respond to multiple inquiries about Gates’s disclosure.

Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of humanities and social sciences at Tufts University (with whom I co-authored an academic journal article in 2017), says disclosures are critical because they notify readers about potential bias.

“The last person I would want to tell me if a vaccine was ready to go is a person who has an investment in the vaccine,” Krimsky said.

Gates didn’t mention specific vaccines in his journal article, but elsewhere he seems to be picking winners and losers. In a longform interview on The Daily Show in April, Bill Gates seemed to say his foundation would spend billions of dollars to support manufacturing for seven of its favored vaccine constructs. (The foundation would not confirm this spending or provide any details).

If Gates followed disclosure rules, we would have transparency not just around the Gates Foundation’s $47 billion endowment but also about where Bill and Melinda Gates’s personal fortune is held.

According to Forbes’s estimates, Bill Gates’s private wealth, estimated at around $115 billion, has increased by more than $10 billion during the pandemic. It is unknown if the Gateses have personal investments in companies working on Covid.
Click to expand...

https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/bill-gates-investments-covid/

Why would you give over all of your trust to an organization that got everything wrong the first time we needed them?

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/117/903/282/playable/800ede90a614258b.mp4

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/121/564/407/playable/69bf8af4cccf2ee5.mp4

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/121/674/108/playable/44b13bca77225bd2.mp4

And I cannot help but remember the great big christmas party our leaders through when the rest of us were not allowed to leave our homes or visit loved ones in hospitals or travel at all. Families lost their businesses, people were made redundant, the queen herself had to sit alone with her dead husband because of covid restrictions.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/121/984/194/playable/214211c9fe257dde.mp4

They were trying to pump healthy babies full of this shit.
 
Last edited:
GB News cxensured over Covid Vaccine Mass Murder cxlaims.

GB News breached the broadcasting code when it allowed Naomi Wolf to repeatedly compare Covid-19 vaccinations to mass murder without being challenged.

The US author made an appearance last October on GB News’ Mark Steyn show and claimed that the vaccine rollout amounted to a premeditated crime, saying it was comparable with the actions of “doctors in pre-Nazi Germany”.

On Tuesday the media regulator, Ofcom, said it was particularly concerned by Wolf’s “significant and alarming claim” that mass murder was taking place through vaccinations, which she repeated three times without significant inclusion of challenge or context.

In its defence, the channel argued that its audience had different expectations because “GB News has a different approach from many other factual channels”. The channel said it promoted “controversial and contrarian [views] as a way of provoking thoughtful questioning and debate and re-evaluation of important issues”.

This is the second significant breach of the broadcasting code recorded by GB News and the media regulator is requesting the broadcaster attends a meeting “to discuss its approach to compliance”. However, there is no indication Ofcom will impose a financial penalty as the regulator struggles to deal with new upstart channels pushing the limits of the broadcasting code.

The channel argued it was a mistake to claim that “outspoken and combative language advocating a view that seems outside the bounds of ‘polite discourse’ must be harmful in some way”. It considered the statements made in the programme “might, at the most, have given some viewers ‘pause for thought’ about the wisdom of having another vaccination” but maintained that this was “part of the value of diverse opinion and in any case cannot be considered in isolation”.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...les-presenter-covid-vaccine-claims-mark-steyn
It comes two months after the watchdog ruled an episode of the Mark Steyn show which aired last April broke its broadcasting rules and was “potentially harmful and materially misleading” with an “incorrect claim” that UK Health Security Agency data provided evidence of a “definitive causal link” between a third Covid-19 vaccine and higher rates of infection, death and people being admitted to hospital.

Ofcom said of the latest investigation: “It is important to stress that in line with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters are free to transmit programmes that include controversial and challenging views, including about Covid-19 vaccines or conspiracy theories. However, alongside this editorial freedom, the broadcasting code imposes a clear requirement that if such content has the potential to be harmful, the broadcaster must ensure that its audience is adequately protected. ...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-naomi-wolf-compared-covid-jab-to-mass-murder
 
IMO in this instance it really rather hinges around who is deciding what is harmful?
In this instance Ofcom is basically saying that GB News did not challenge the views of a contributor who thought that (specifically) the Covid vaccines were dangerous. And it has been proved that there are instances of people who have had severe reactions to them, and also people that have died due to those reactions.
So I wouldn't say it's 'harmful' per se to not challenge her view.
If anything it would be harmful to not report to the general public that the Covid vaccines (like all medicines/treatments) carry the risk of side effects, some of which can be serious, or even lethal.
 
Trevp666 said:
IMO in this instance it really rather hinges around who is deciding what is harmful?
In this instance Ofcom is basically saying that GB News did not challenge the views of a contributor who thought that (specifically) the Covid vaccines were dangerous. And it has been proved that there are instances of people who have had severe reactions to them, and also people that have died due to those reactions.
So I wouldn't say it's 'harmful' per se to not challenge her view.
If anything it would be harmful to not report to the general public that the Covid vaccines (like all medicines/treatments) carry the risk of side effects, some of which can be serious, or even lethal.
Click to expand...

Thar's a bit different from stating it's mass murder though. Which is what Ofcom ruled on.
 
Last edited:
ramonmercado said:
n its defence, the channel argued that its audience had different expectations because “GB News has a different approach from many other factual channels”. The channel said it promoted “controversial and contrarian [views] as a way of provoking thoughtful questioning and debate and re-evaluation of important issues”.
Click to expand...
:hahazebs::hahazebs:
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Not sure it's GB News that should be censured, but rather the individual who stated that view.
Just as when The Guardian printed Diane Abbott's letter claiming Jews cannot suffer racism, the ensuing criticism was aimed squarely at Abbott, rather than The Guardian.
GB News is committed to freedom of speech and goes out of its way to present wildly differing viewpoints. Farage's interview recently with The Guardian's Polly Toynbee was a good example. Whilst politically, they were poles apart notably when discussing things like the NHS and Covid lockdowns, the interview was amicable and entertaining.
It would be a rather boring old news/discussion channel if it only stuck to one narrative.
Click to expand...

The GB presenter should have asked Woolf for proof of her assertions.
 
Last edited:
Debate on GB News right now (Dewbs and co.) about whether China should pay reparations for the pandemic, especially given that the evidence (as per article in latest FT) tends to point at one of China's "gain of function" experiments at the Wuhan virology lab gone wrong.
It will never happen of course, but an interesting debate.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Debate on GB News right now (Dewbs and co.) about whether China should pay reparations for the pandemic, especially given that the evidence (as per article in latest FT) tends to point at one of China's "gain of function" experiments at the Wuhan virology lab gone wrong.
It will never happen of course, but an interesting debate.
Click to expand...
:hahazebs: Right. And Spain should pay reparations for the Spanish flu that didn't originate in Spain and Hong Kong should pay reparations for the Hong Kong flu that didn't originate in Hong Kong. People are looking for every excuse to get a handout from someone. It is an idiotic debate in my opinion.

Just like reparations from the state of California for something that happened 150 years ago. And in that instance, no mention of reparations to the chinese slaves that were brought in through San Francisco to build the rail roads. Why is that? It is always about "black slaves", and no acknowledgment of any other people who were enslaved or the genocide that was caused to colonize the U.S, Canada. & Australia.
 
JahaRa said:
:hahazebs: Right. And Spain should pay reparations for the Spanish flu that didn't originate in Spain and Hong Kong should pay reparations for the Hong Kong flu that didn't originate in Hong Kong. People are looking for every excuse to get a handout from someone. It is an idiotic debate in my opinion.

Just like reparations from the state of California for something that happened 150 years ago. And in that instance, no mention of reparations to the chinese slaves that were brought in through San Francisco to build the rail roads. Why is that? It is always about "black slaves", and no acknowledgment of any other people who were enslaved or the genocide that was caused to colonize the U.S, Canada. & Australia.
Click to expand...
But, whataboutery aside, this isn't the misnamed "Spanish flu" or something that happened 150 years ago.
This is the most heinous pandemic in living memory, which has killed millions, destroyed many countries' economies and which very probably was engineered in a Wuhan lab.
Just as BP paid £20 billion compensation for the comparatively trivial Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which resulted in 11 deaths, why should China be exempt from compensating the bereaved of millions of dead?
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
But, whataboutery aside, this isn't the misnamed "Spanish flu" or something that happened 150 years ago.
This is the most heinous pandemic in living memory, which has killed millions, destroyed many countries' economies and which very probably was engineered in a Wuhan lab.
Just as BP paid £20 billion compensation for the comparatively trivial Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which resulted in 11 deaths, why should China be exempt from compensating the bereaved of millions of dead?
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't live through the late 60's when we had the last pandemic. The response by the government was totally different, which is what destroyed many economies (you are talking about U.S. & UK right?). Yes, the covid19 virus mutates a lot faster than the influenza virus but now it is no worse than the flu was in the early 70's. They didn't even have a vaccine until the early 70's.

Based on the population in the 1968, the Hong Kong flu killed the same percentage of the population in the world as the covid19 virus did in 2020.
 
JahaRa said:
You obviously didn't live through the late 60's when we had the last pandemic. The response by the government was totally different, which is what destroyed many economies (you are talking about U.S. & UK right?). Yes, the covid19 virus mutates a lot faster than the influenza virus but now it is no worse than the flu was in the early 70's. They didn't even have a vaccine until the early 70's.

Based on the population in the 1968, the Hong Kong flu killed the same percentage of the population in the world as the covid19 virus did in 2020.
Click to expand...
But Covid isn't the 'flu. If the evidence is substantiated that, unlike seasonal flu and the occasional epidemic, this rather unique pandemic was engineered in a Chinese lab and its effects were exacerbated by Chinese misinformation and coverups, you don't feel that the state responsible should pay any compensation whatsoever? Should countries bear no responsibility for their actions?
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
But Covid isn't the 'flu. If the evidence is substantiated that, unlike seasonal flu and the occasional epidemic, this rather unique pandemic was engineered in a Chinese lab and its effects were exacerbated by Chinese misinformation and coverups, you don't feel that the state responsible should pay any compensation whatsoever? Should countries bear no responsibility for their actions?
Click to expand...
I agree, and wonder at the repercussions if it had been another country that had been at the bottom of this.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
But Covid isn't the 'flu. If the evidence is substantiated that, unlike seasonal flu and the occasional epidemic, this rather unique pandemic was engineered in a Chinese lab and its effects were exacerbated by Chinese misinformation and coverups, you don't feel that the state responsible should pay any compensation whatsoever? Should countries bear no responsibility for their actions?
Click to expand...
You can believe that if you want. Based on the way the U.S. and UK responded I think it did not originate in Wuhan OR non chinese scientists hiring that lab for work caused this. Why else would we be lied to about it (in the U.S.) until March 2020, then why would all the lies about the Astrazeneca and J&J vaccines be propogated, when the same issues were document from the Pfizer vaccine? The "plague ships" that were in the news in October through November 2019 were mostly populated by U.S. tourists! And they were the only ones allowed by their government to get on planes with others and fly home as if they were not spreading a disease. It was in the U.S. much sooner than any "official" would admit. No, I have a hard time believing it originated from China, especially because of all the "fear mongering" we are getting inundated about the Chinese government sending spies over to buy up all our property, etc. And those balloons were supposedly chinese spy equipment, but some of them are still floating around? No. Just like in the 60's we were supposed to fear invasion by the Russians and it never happened.
 
JahaRa said:
You can believe that if you want. Based on the way the U.S. and UK responded I think it did not originate in Wuhan OR non chinese scientists hiring that lab for work caused this. Why else would we be lied to about it (in the U.S.) until March 2020, then why would all the lies about the Astrazeneca and J&J vaccines be propogated, when the same issues were document from the Pfizer vaccine? The "plague ships" that were in the news in October through November 2019 were mostly populated by U.S. tourists! And they were the only ones allowed by their government to get on planes with others and fly home as if they were not spreading a disease. It was in the U.S. much sooner than any "official" would admit. No, I have a hard time believing it originated from China, especially because of all the "fear mongering" we are getting inundated about the Chinese government sending spies over to buy up all our property, etc. And those balloons were supposedly chinese spy equipment, but some of them are still floating around? No. Just like in the 60's we were supposed to fear invasion by the Russians and it never happened.
Click to expand...
Well, you ask why the US govt would lie to us about the source of the virus, despite the "far-mongering"? Well, quick counter question: Is it the govt doing the fear mongering?

See, "why would the govt lie?" was asked and answered over a year ago: a certain amount of US tax dollars was funding the Wuhan lab via Fauci. That is reason enough for them to suppress the idea it was Wuhan, if they publicly condemned Wuhan... they'd have to condemn themselves for funding it.
 

Ester McVey MP on WHO​


This a comment registered below the video that reflects how I feel so I wanted to share it here.

I have been trying to flag up the intentions of the WHO for some time now. This is one of the scariest things I have come across. Finally the light of day is starting to shine into the murky corners of what is being stealthily proposed. It was a brilliant speech and this attempt by the WHO to take control MUST be stopped. We would fall into the situation where all the pharmaceutical regulators and the WHO are funded heavily by the big pharmaceutical companies. The WHO would be in total control and would tell countries what they MUST do. It's possible that all current normal vaccines could be ceased and replaced by much more expensive mRNA vaccines and the WHO could mandate that every individual MUST take them. It also gives our lazy and useless politicians a chance to off load all the health matters and have no accountability for them, they could sit back and say the WHO are in charge and they must just follow their recommendations. From my perspective it looks like a stinking pile of corruption !
Click to expand...
 
The thing with demanding compensation from a state is, that state has to agree to paying it.
You prove that it originated in China - from any cause such as accident or deliberate engineering - and they just deny that proof. How are you going to force a wealthy nation to cough up reparations? Sanctions? Embargo? Because of the modern world of globalisation, everything is interconnected, so financial pressure is a tricky thing.
The only reason - in my opinion - that China is denying any 'official' wrong-doing over covid is because of the nature of the CCP; the State can never do wrong. It's always minor officials or citizens who are responsible, not the system, not the government. Most (if not all) dictatorships or totalitarian states only remain in power while they preserve the image as being all-powerful and infallible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top