Trump withholding funds to W.H.O.

Post Reply New Topic

From linked article:
"As a matter of practice the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment publicly on specific intelligence matters. However, in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists," the statement said.

Coupled with the timeline on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... nuary_2020

Would make the November intelligence claims highly questionable.

The statement pertains to "public comment" which is in line with CIA policy on intelligence being confidential from Joe public but not from the president. So not sure what your point is?

^Yes, it's not only China that was withholding information. If Trump knew things divulged by the CIA that weren't timeously shared with the US people for their safety, isn't he just as complicit?

Governments seldom play open cards with their citizens. If it's to prevent panic, then its the wrong way to do it because people do tend to panic when things get out of hand, as the virus been allowed to do. Isn't early intervention and sharing of information always best?

And one more thing: why does he refuse to listen to the advice of medical experts, such as Fauci? What's the point of advisors being there if he doesn't take advice from anyone?

Last edited by envirozentinel on 21 Apr 2020, 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.: typo and addition

To put into simple terms:
The "source" of the report stated that although they usually refuse to comment on these sorts of claims, they confirmed that the report on which your "Known in november" claims was based on did not exist.

The first report of an unknown form of pneumonia was December 12.

The first case of a cluster of 41 was admitted to Hospital on December 16

The first report of a group of people with unknown form of Pneumonia was December 20.

The CDC was notified of a cluster of unexplained Pneumonia on December 31.

It was not until January 20 that the W.H.O. reported that it was clear that human-to-human transmission was occurring.

It took meetings from January 22 until Jaunary 30 for the W.H.O. to declare it was a "Public Health Emergency of International Concern".

So, based on this, no November report (which you based your claims of it having been ignored) appears to have existed. The first cluster (as oppposed to isolated, individual cases) occurred in the middle of December.

With this in mind, other than nameless, faceless "sources", there would appear to be no way (outside of fantasy) for the US President to have had any knowledge of this in November, let alone in 2019.

Of course, to the partisans, evidence is no match for "unamed"/anonymous "sources" and "feelings", so I doubt this will cause them to re-think their claims. Sadly for them, it is just this sort of attitude and these actions which is most likely to cause their "side" to drive away undecided voters and cause them to lose support, whereas actual research and evidence being collected before making claims would be more likely to get people to support them.

Why are you trying so hard to defend Trump? the intel was passed to foreign agencies in November 2019 so do you really think they would keep it from their lord and master?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-alerte ... er-report/

Let's just say that having suffered growing up a result of being accused of hiding knowledge which I never had (The joy of being the oldest child...responsible for anything the younger children did), or getting into trouble for doing things the wrong way because people assumed I had information at the time which I only discovered later, I am not a fan of jumping on the bandwagon and persecuting someone on spurious claims such as those you have based your "knowing in 2019" on.

I like to see the actual evidence upon which a claim is made, not just trust an anonymous source as it supports a subjective opinion I may happen to have. Additionally, when there are actual reports and timelines which contradict claims from anonymous sources and no reports/records which support their claims, it indicates that the source is more likely trying to "help" those with a pre-exisiting set of beliefs rather than being a source of factual matter.

As you would have noted from an earlier post of mine in this thread...I'm happy to get stuck in if it can be proven that evidence exists, but so far all available evidence (as opposed to rumours of mysterious reports from anonymous sources) would indicate to an objective person (or, in fact, any person interested in the truth) that the claims of a report in November which were ignored are completely without basis and designed to try and form a narative for what one must assume is either personal or political purposes.

The fact that you declined to provide (or were unable to find) any counter argument (or evidence) to the rest of the items in the post (other than a news article which appears based again on anonymous sources) and are unable to provide any credible evidence (your link here appears to be the standard media "reporting" where one outlet reports soomething, another changes this and uses it as a source, until people claim it must be true as so many news companies are reporting the same thing, without bothering to research the source of the claims) would sadly seem to reflect more on the "value" of the claim and the gullibility of those who wish it to be true rather than than the "guilt" of the target of the claim being made.

To some people, truth is important, to others it's a case of "anything to win", sadly.

So basically, because you were once unfairly accused of something roughly analogous, you're going to insist (without any information to substantiate your position) that Trump certainly wasn't informed of this? The fact that you once were unfairly accused really doesn't amount to the slightest amount of evidence that Trump is currently being unfairly accused of refusing to act on information he had.

Forgive me for not getting on the 'Trump can do no wrong' bandwagon, but I want nothing to do with the company they keep or the consistent dishonesty they employ to defend Dear Leader.

I haven't insisted he wasn't informed of this, I have purely presented information demonstrating the extreme unliklihood of the report existing, and so refusing to join an attack where it does not appear warranted, whereas many will choose to attack based on the flimsiest of "evidence" merely because of who the target is.

Let's just say that I prefer to take an objective view of the evidence, which at this point consists of a report whose supposed source states it never existed, and which pre-dates all known records of any indications of anything resembling this virus having been recorded/published.

Strangely, asking for something (anything) other than "reports from anonymous sources" that could reinforce the possibility of the report being true (and so would alter my opinion on how this has been handled), has been met with either another "anonymous report" (which appears to be the initial report through a different media publication) or being accused of being on the 'Trump can do no wrong' bandwagon.

It's a sad world where people are attacked for trying to find the objective truth, instead of having verifiable evidence presented in order to assist in determining this truth...It's sadder that some people apparenty see this search for truth as a threat and so feel the need to try and silence anyone looking it. Or to put it another way, it seems like some prefer "mob justice" (ignoring evidence in favor of pre-determined opinion) over "jury determination" (search for impartial truth, wherever it may lead).

You are trying to debunk knowledge that is now in the public domain. Like trying to flog a dead horse.
The US National Centre for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), an arm of the Pentagon’s Defence Intelligence Agency passed intel on the Wuhan virus to various agencies (including the Israelis) in late November for the purpose of developing more accurate risk models (something I used to get paid to do once upon a time).

The NCMI in relation to the outbreak of Swine Flu (H1N1), predicting that it would become a pandemic two months prior to the declaration of a pandemic in June 2009 by WHO and the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

A official warning was issued in January 2019 by the US Office of the Director of Intelligence about international vulnerability to a “large-scale outbreak of a contagious disease”, causing massive deaths and severely impacting the world economy (google it). But as I said the numbers were crunched by the NCMI long before and circulated in Late November.
All the experts have said the US stayed catastrophically under-prepared. Trump's negligence is all in the public domain.

At this point, I'm not sure if you are wilfully ignoring what I have posted, or honestly do not understand...

You have supplied a link to a claim by an anonymous source about a report from November.

I replied with a link to all known recorded facts which show that the first records of the disease, prior to it being recognised as something other than an unusual form of influenze\pneumonia did not occur until a month after the mysterious report, along with the detail FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE that the organisation which had been claimed to have produce the November report stating no such report existed.

You replied to this (ignoring all the actual evidence which did not support your prefered narative) with another "anonymous report" which appeared to be a rewrite of the initial artcile, again with no factual evidence.

I again indicated that "anonymous sources" talking about "secret reports" is not EVIDENDCE, instead appearing as a device to push a specific narative, and once more asking for EVIDENCE.

And your reply: To state that now that the stories about your "anonymous source" and the "secret report" are "Knowledge that is in the public domain" purely because someone (who is not named) has made a claim that has been published to push a narative, with no evidence to support the claim, and much evidence (provided to you in a previous post) that refutes it.

All I have asked for is evidence, yet the best you can come up with is to report a rumour as though it holds huge value, purely because you wish to believe it and feel that others must throw out all critical thinking and trust it.

So, in simple terms: Can you provide ANY verifiable evidence (stories sourced from anonymous sources regardless of who publishes them are obviously not evidence, merely (at best) rumour, at worst disinformation) to support your stated claim that this was known in November, or does your whole argument rest entirely on what amounts to an anonymous claim of what appears to be a non-existant report?

Oh for goodness sake! you are just getting fixated with one thing and yet the evidence is in the public domain??
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... how-report

Your hero Trump would have been made aware of the intelligence regardless of the source in late November 2019. His excuse for ignoring the NCMI modelling could be based on the fact the numbers/risk was preliminary but that argument doesn't hold water in early January 2020 when the numbers were crunched and the modelling prompted the US Office of the Director of Intelligence to announce international vulnerability to a “large-scale outbreak of a contagious disease”, causing massive deaths and severely impacting the world economy (google it).

It's like asking me how many ways are there to skin a cat and I am going through one by one for your entertainment.

Finally...something verifiable, rather than stories about a mysterious report from someone anonymous sources.

However, I'm curious how this supports your claim that President Trump (not my hero, by the way) KNEW about this in November when a cursory look at it would indicate the extreme unliklihood of this.
According to the article:
* The first case of someone suffering from it can be traced to November 17.
* For the following month 1-5 cases reported per day...Worst case would have been under 70 for the month in a region with a population of 11 million, but the article also states that only 60 cases as of December 20, leading to an upper limit of 50 in November, meaning (at best) 1 person in every 220,000 had the disease as at the end of November.

Additionally, from the article:


So, the entire basis of your belief that the US government was aware of this disease, had a report completed, and ignored it is that (putting the most favourable spin on this in your benefit) a disease which affected 1 person in 220,000 in another country should have been considered so serious that the US government (and others around the world) should have immediately started preparing for the possibility of it reaching thier country?

Or, to look at it in an objective way: For what reason could any person consider that a disease (which, based on the fact that even with specific knowledge of it now is still easily able to be mistaken for other, known disease(s)) that affected 0.0000045% of the population of a city, with at most 50 people contracting it over 2-3 weeks (potentially visited many different hospitals for treatment), making linking the cases extremely difficult have caused the leader of ANY country to have considered it a risk needing immediate action to prevent its spread or even to prepare for it to arrive in their country?

I'm starting to realise that to you, anything President Trump does must be wrong, and that you have no concern for facts where these objectively disprove your pre-determined opinion, but I'd like to think that maybe you might one day start to look at the objective evidence. I understand that everyone has their own sets of beliefs and biases, but it would be nice if more people could learn to set these aside (as much as is possible) and actually research things, rather than just accept the first thing they see which supports their pre-determined opinion.

Again, I am not denying the POSSIBILITY that the mysterious report which you earlier claimed had been ignored in November existed, just pointing out how extremely unlikly this report's existence is...Should it turn out to have existed, indicated the existence of the current (or similar) disease, and indicated a likelihood of the disease spreading, and so requiring immediate action, then of course, I would agree with you that those responsible should be held to account, but at this point in time, I hope you can see how utterly implausible the report's existence (and hence the claim you are making that it was ignored) truly is.

Yes Aspie princess made me realise that I am lacking objectivity with Trump and realise I am going down the same rabbit hole as Goldfish (not something I want to aim to do).

The COVID-19 saga illustrated that left wing politicians are equally as incompetent especially in the case of my state minister Dan Andrews.

Apologies for going hard on you, Pepe and Ezra....this is after all an Autism forum not an NT hangout....