Senior WHO official dodges questions about Taiwan’s WHO membership; praises China

I don’t know how people can defend this organization and criticize the US government for losing trust in it, when there’s a myriad of scandals like this one. ▶ this video

This is not new. China has always ran strong external influence campaigns. This has only ramped up in recent years under Xi. China has police presence around the world[1]. And remember how they controlled the narrative around COVID, the dubious WHO report in 2020, and this interview[2]? [1]: link [2]: ▶ this video

If you're looking for definitive evidence, you're unlikely to find any. But there have certainly been many instances of the WHO acting in favor of China's best interests, and there are many criticisms of their SARS-CoV-2 research and report. link ▶ this video link I, as a layperson, found several issues with the report as well: link All of this mounts sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to be suspicious of the WHO, if not to entirely dismiss their claims.

Good point! Similarly, there are also countries that are "offensive" from a Chinese point of view. This journalist cannot even mention the name "Taiwan" and "country" in the same sentence without this WHO guy (from Canada!) treating her like pariah. ▶ this video

>Considering that Taiwan is already independent Not according to the PRC, and a lot of countries and international institutions either. Some (usually with close ties to China, but now always, e.g. Spain[1], probably because they do not want to give their own separatist movements any political ammunition) consider the ROC part of the PRC, others are deliberately vague on whether they consider Taiwan independent or even a nation, like e.g. the US[0]. The WHO for example is very adept at avoiding any position on Taiwan[2]. And then of course, there is this guy... [3]. (Just if you like some cringe about a serious topic) >China's goals of "peaceful reunification". (PR) China doesn't really talk about peaceful reunification. They officially consider Taiwan part of the country already, a part that is just a little rebellious at the moment. They are more talking about a peaceful end of the conflict, but recently use the word "peaceful" a lot less. [0] link [1] link [2] ▶ this video [3] link

From this act alone and I am on board with your explanation, but with this[0] interview from last year I'm leaning in the direction of pandering. [0] ▶ this video

While I think all western countries can easily be considered authoritarian countries, given most of them demand half of the profits of everyone doing anything productive on their land, you're terribly deluded if you think they rank anything close to what China is. China has concentration camps, kill businesses with a whip of the hand and apparently have half of the world (probably including your government) on their payroll. ▶ this video

A reference to the current Chinese dictator Xi "Winnie-the-Pooh" Jinping with the implication that the WHO is captured by Chinese interests. See also: WHO trying not to offend China by dodging questions about Taiwan: ▶ this video

> You are missing the important bit: The lab leak would have to be covered up by the Chinese authorities and the WHO would some how have had to be in on it. Is that so inconceivable? The Chinese government has historically obfuscated facts and runs one of the largest media control operations in modern history. The WHO is also an organization of questionable trustworthiness and with suspicious subservience to China[1]. But the WHO wouldn't necessarily had to have been complicit. This could've easily been covered up by Chinese authorities during the many months of blocking external researchers into the country[2]. The research in the report you linked to started in January 2021. As for the report itself, I skimmed a few pages and noticed some issues. My understanding is limited in this area, so please correct me if I'm wrong. 0. First of all, the conflict of interest of it being reported by WHO and Chinese researchers should be a factor in judging the validity of any of its claims. 1. From the arguments in favour of the intermediate host scenario (p. 115): > Although the closest related viruses have been found in bats, the > evolutionary distance between these bat viruses and SARS-CoV-2 is estimated > to be several decades, suggesting a missing link (either a missing progenitor > virus, or evolution of a progenitor virus in an intermediate host). Why would this suggest a missing link? Couldn't gain of function research accelerate the mutations of the virus to make it seem far d

Could you explain why evidence that the virus evolved naturally contradicts the lab-leak theory? I'm all ears and waiting to hear the reasoning. As others have pointed out, lab-leak does not imply artificially developed. > I’m a bioscientist. And I'm a Bayesian analyst. Surely your position is that it is a coincidence that: - the virus appeared to originate in Wuhan - genome sequences from patients were 96% or 89% identical to the Bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus originally found in Rhinolophus affinis - The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which are more than 900 kilometers away Wuhan - According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market - Wuhan is home to two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus - Within ~280 meters from the market, there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention (WHCDC). WHCDC hosted animals in laboratories for research purposes. In one of their studies, 155 bats including Rhinolophus affinis were captured in Hubei province, and other 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province - one of the researchers described that he was once by attacked by bats and the blood of a bat shot on his skin. In another accident, bats peed on him. He was once thrilled for capturing a bat carrying a live tick Not conclusive by any means, but I have yet to hear reasoning by which we should exclude

"Senior WHO official dodges questions about Taiwan’s WHO membership; praises China": ▶ this video Japan's deputy prime minister calls the WHO the "Chinese Health Organization": link > are we saying that the international group that entered china were some how in league with the CCP? There may be reason to expect that they or their superiors are ... biased.

There is a difference between war mongering and legit concerns. The "russia, russia" thingy really seems to have been just media warmongering. But China seems to be more proactive, there are many stories of Chinese briberies. The WHO seems to be owned by China: ▶ this video Also regarding US 2020 elections voting systems: "SEC filings: The parent company of Dominion Voting Systems received $400 million from an Investment Bank in Switzerland that is 75% owned by the Chinese government. UBS Securities is a Swiss investment bank which owns 24.99% of UBS Securities Co LTD, a Chinese Investment Bank. The remaining 75% of UBS Securities CO LTD is owned by the Chinese government,” states the report."