In 2016 the Oxford English Dictionary declared “post-truth” to be the word of the year. The reality to which it referred has been around for a long time. Hannah Arendt, for instance, used an equivalent term, “de-factualization,” in connection with her discussion of the Pentagon Papers. More recently, post-truth or de-factualization have become essential concepts to understanding the Interim Report issued by Kimberly Murray, Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites Associated with Indian Residential Schools..In her report, Murray recommended to Justice Minister David Lametti something called “Indigenous data sovereignty,” which meant that indigenous persons could veto discussions of indigenous communities. Violations of data sovereignty would be a criminal offence, especially if committed by “denialists.” They were miscreants who criticized the official interpretation of, say, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation regarding the truth surrounding (alleged) unmarked graves at Indian Residential Schools. Murray used to be the Executive Director of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission..That is, uttering the factual truth that there is no evidence that “soil disturbances” reflected in ground-penetrating radar images were caused by midnight burials of the corpses of murdered Indian children, if Murray had her way, would invite prosecution..That there were abuses in Indian Residential Schools is accurate. That there was nothing but abuse and extensive killing is not. Insisting on the facts in a de-factualized context makes it clear that facts are not a defence. Criminal penalties are to ensure we believe the fictions of the Special Interlocutor.. Kimberly MurrayKimberly Murray, BA, LL.B, IPC., Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites associated with Indian Residential Schools. .De-factualization takes place on larger stages as well. Last Friday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in Washington issued a report called: “Potential Links Between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic.”.The report was based on consultation with members of the Intelligence Community (IC.) Before looking at the report, consider a few contextual facts..A January 2021 State Department “fact sheet” indicated that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was conducting gain-of-function research “to engineer chimeric viruses,” that is, viruses that do not occur naturally..In August 2021, this same Office of the DNI issued an assessment stating that four members of the IC believed with “low confidence” that COVID-19 had a natural origin..Former DNI John Ratcliffe said last March that is was “utter nonsense” to say the IC lacked sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding the origin of the COVID-19 event. Previously he said that “the lab-leak is the only theory supported by science, intelligence, and commonsense.” By refusing to acknowledge this, his successor, Avril Haines, was guilty of “continual obfuscation.”.That is, there were good reasons and solid factual evidence to conclude the COVID-19 event resulted from a WIV leak. That is not, however, what the recent ODNI report indicated..It claimed to be a “response” to the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023. This Act, unanimously passed by Congress, required the DNI to declassify intelligence regarding potential links between the WIV and the origin of COVID-19..According to Representative Mike Turner (R-Ohio), what really happened was that “they went behind the curtain, read the stuff, and came out and said this is what we think about it.” Moreover, Turner, who also had examined the confidential annex to the report, said it contained intelligence that contradicted the opinion of the ODNI about that information..The report denied this. Who you going to believe? Does it remind you of the claims regarding unmarked graves at Indian Residential Schools? Here is the analogy: we say so, but no one is going to dig anything up. We say so, but nobody is going to look “behind the curtain.”.The fact is, the report is anything but a response to the COVID-19 Origin Act. So, what is it?.The first paragraph stated: “This report does not address the merits of the two most likely pandemic origins hypotheses,” nor does it look elsewhere than at the WIV..Two comments: First, when the report looked at the Institute, it found no “direct evidence” of any accident. In fact, direct evidence would be found in the lab notebooks of WIV employees. Unfortunately, Chinese authorities refused to make this material available, which is analogous to refusing to dig up “disturbed soil.” Accordingly, everyone, including the intelligence community, must use some commonsense and consider indirect evidence, of which there is a great deal. Most of it Marco Navarro-Génie and I discussed (with copious footnotes) in the opening chapter of our book, Canada’s COVID. It is entirely consistent with the remarks of former DNI Ratcliffe..Second, the report ignored the “merits” of the lab-origin theory versus the theory of a natural, animal, or “zoonotic” origin. Why? Because both hypotheses “rely on significant assumptions” and have to deal with “conflicting reporting.”.This is true enough. But there is a big difference between plausible assumptions that support the lab-leak hypothesis and implausible, not to say downright silly, assumptions that support the hypothesis of zoonotic transfer..There are other oddities in the report. It claims that the WIV is a “civilian research institute” and thus is “independent of the People’s Liberation Army.” Yet, the Institute works with the PLA and, just like the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg, is (or was) staffed by PLA personnel. Besides, do the members of the Intelligence Community really believe that any significant operation in China is “independent” of the PLA?.On biosafety and the WIV researchers who fell ill in the fall of 2019, the report again obfuscates. The report says “some WIV researchers probably did not use adequate biosafety precautions at least some of the time.” In fact, extensive documentation indicates that the WIV operated at “biosafety level two (BSL-2)” not BSL-3 or BSL-4, which are standard when dealing with virulent pathogens. BSL-2 is what one finds in a Calgary dentist’s office..The report noted that “several” WIV researchers were “mildly ill” in the fall of 2019 but added: “this information neither supports nor refutes either hypothesis.” Why not? Because the symptoms presented by these researchers “could have been caused” by some other disease. Anyhow, the Chinese National Security Commission said that blood samples from these researchers were negative for COVID-19. Another dubious source, the World Health Organization, vouched for the Chinese authorities..The ODNI report ignored a January 2022 State Department memo that provided the names of the three sick individuals. This intelligence, reported in the Street Journal on June 20, named Ben Hu, Yu Ping, and Yan Zhu, all associated with the WIV, as having become ill with symptoms consistent with COVID-19..Their biographies add some significant details. Hu worked on how coronaviruses infect humans. He was a protégé of the “bat lady,” Shi Zhengli, who worked on modifying coronaviruses so they could easily bind with human cells. Moreover, she had learned a technique of genetic engineering from Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill that was next to impossible to detect. Baric called it the “no-see-um” technique, after the tiny biting fly..None of this work (of course) had anything to do with bioweapons development. No! No! No! It was all aimed at developing an anti-virus vaccine..The other two also worked on SARS-related coronaviruses found in bats. Their work was funded by US taxpayers dispensed by Anthony Fauci and laundered through the EcoHealth Alliance run by Peter Daszak. The ODNI found nothing suspicious there..With almost seven million deaths attributed to COVID-19, we know why discussion of the lab-leak hypothesis has been shrouded in diplomatic double-speak. Likewise, when Murray invented notions such as “Indigenous data sovereignty” to silence critics, her purpose it intelligible..The real problem with both the ODNI report and Murray’s Interim Report is one of de-factualization. Such post-truth tactics invariably result in a diminution of trust in the agencies that issue them..Who, with a shred of commonsense, would believe anything this DNI might issue in the future?.Who would believe anything in any follow-on report from Murray?
