3 ms·

A “conspiracy theory” implies a cover up. That’s very different than a hypothesis. Many hypotheses start out with no direct evidence, just an insight. Relativit

A “conspiracy theory” implies a cover up. That’s very different than a hypothesis. Many hypotheses start out with no direct evidence, just an insight. Relativity is a good example. The hypothesis that Covid-19 escaped from a laboratory already has strong circumstantial evidence behind it. Lab escapes do happen, have happened, and the WIV is full of corona viruses under study. In fact it contains the closest relatives to Covid-19 known. Now all of that doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a reasonable hypothesis that’s not yet proven. To characterize it, though, as a “conspiracy theory”, seems disingenuous.

newacct583 5y ago
An argument that something could happen is not evidence that it did. It's not even "circumstantial" evidence that it did. The world is filled with potential catastrophes that could happen. Circumstantial evidence would be if you had a source from inside the lab -- a memo, maybe, or a leak from an intelligence agency that interviewed a whistleblower -- that told you they believed covid was a lab leak. Or maybe that they were working on something with features that match covid better than that bat virus does, etc... Absent that, sorry, you're engaged in a "conspiracy theory" in the vernacular. Hiding behind the dictionary definition of "conspiracy" isn't really helping your case.
- spfzero 5y ago
  If you and I were walking down the street and saw a dead cat on the side of the road, I would tell you that cat was possibly hit by a car, and I'd be justified in saying that. I have only two pieces of circumstantial evidence: the location of the dead cat in the place where cars drive by, and the fact that cats are sometimes known to have been run over by cars. The WIV is in the exact place where the outbreak began, and houses the same strain of viruses, and researches them by breeding new variants. And, viruses have escaped from laboratories before. It occurs fairly regularly. This is far from a "conspiracy theory", not to mention that it doesn't even involve a conspiracy.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    Cats get hit by cars every day. Lab escapes of contagious diseases are extremely rare[1]. That doesn't figure into your analysis? Imagine instead that you pointed to the squashed cat and demanded that I debate the Very Important Possibility that the cat was in fact killed by an illegal Chinese helicopter. "Uh, dude..." I reply. "That cat was clearly run over by a car." "But no!", you say. "There have been helicopter slayings in the past, right? And there are no track marks! And the Chinese are known to be developing helicopters that could totally do this to a poor cat. There is an airport just miles away! Look at all these other people who believe in the helicopter theory! YOU ARE SUPPRESSING THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE!" Get the point? [1] In fact recognized newly evolved strains of existing viruses outnumber "lab leaks" by a factor of something like tens of thousands. Pick any one disease and it's basically guaranteed that it's not a lab leak.

newacct583 5y ago

An argument that something could happen is not evidence that it did. It's not even "circumstantial" evidence that it did. The world is filled with potential catastrophes that could happen. Circumstantial evidence would be if you had a source from inside the lab -- a memo, maybe, or a leak from an intelligence agency that interviewed a whistleblower -- that told you they believed covid was a lab leak. Or maybe that they were working on something with features that match covid better than that bat virus does, etc... Absent that, sorry, you're engaged in a "conspiracy theory" in the vernacular. Hiding behind the dictionary definition of "conspiracy" isn't really helping your case.

spfzero 5y ago
If you and I were walking down the street and saw a dead cat on the side of the road, I would tell you that cat was possibly hit by a car, and I'd be justified in saying that. I have only two pieces of circumstantial evidence: the location of the dead cat in the place where cars drive by, and the fact that cats are sometimes known to have been run over by cars. The WIV is in the exact place where the outbreak began, and houses the same strain of viruses, and researches them by breeding new variants. And, viruses have escaped from laboratories before. It occurs fairly regularly. This is far from a "conspiracy theory", not to mention that it doesn't even involve a conspiracy.
- newacct583 5y ago
  Cats get hit by cars every day. Lab escapes of contagious diseases are extremely rare[1]. That doesn't figure into your analysis? Imagine instead that you pointed to the squashed cat and demanded that I debate the Very Important Possibility that the cat was in fact killed by an illegal Chinese helicopter. "Uh, dude..." I reply. "That cat was clearly run over by a car." "But no!", you say. "There have been helicopter slayings in the past, right? And there are no track marks! And the Chinese are known to be developing helicopters that could totally do this to a poor cat. There is an airport just miles away! Look at all these other people who believe in the helicopter theory! YOU ARE SUPPRESSING THIS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE!" Get the point? [1] In fact recognized newly evolved strains of existing viruses outnumber "lab leaks" by a factor of something like tens of thousands. Pick any one disease and it's basically guaranteed that it's not a lab leak.