4 ms·

It was a fringe theory pushed largely but not exclusively by racists and opportunists that wanted to paint China as the bad guy and shield the previous administ

by slg 5y ago

It was a fringe theory pushed largely but not exclusively by racists and opportunists that wanted to paint China as the bad guy and shield the previous administration and other politicians from blame for how they reacted to the pandemic. Totally independent of that, the general scientific community seemed to be much more opposed to the lab theory early on than they are now. It still doesn't appear to be much evidence for it beyond circumstantial stuff, but it is a possibility that more people are engaging with. Combine these two and it isn't surprising that these platforms cracked down on this type of talk early and are slow to allowing it to start happening again.

kaesar14 5y ago
The circumstantial evidence both then and now was largely favor of lab leaks. Members of the scientific community with a potential culpability in a lab leak helped silence discourse by framing it as a political issue as opposed to a scientific one, helped by America’s ever so controversial President coming out in support of a lab leak. With Trump gone and even more time elapsing with no reasonable natural origin of COVID found, a lab leak is back in the mainstream, even though we should’ve been discussing it from the beginning based on circumstantial evidence. It’s plainly evident that allowing these platforms to regulate our speech in this manner is poisonous. But whatever it takes to silence Trump and his ilk, I guess. Edit: I see I’ve been downvoted for this. I suggest people look at the facts themselves and decide whether a lab leak should’ve ever been dismissed as a crockpot theory. https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
- slg 5y ago
  You can't just point to circumstantial evidence as justification for any theory you want. You are doing the exact same thing here. You have circumstantial evidence of a motive (scientists wanting to avoid culpability) and are taking it as justification that they are guilty of silencing discourse about the lab origin theory. Where is the direct evidence of either the lab origin or malicious silencing of discourse by Western scientists? I don't think it is unreasonable to wait for direct evidence of guilt before signing off on blaming someone for millions of deaths. That is a heavy accusation that needs to come with a degree of confidence that goes beyond the normal conspiracy theory approach of "just asking questions".
  - kaesar14 5y ago
    You’re conflating two different things. Peter Daszak’s original statements and articles about COVID and its origins last year led to a significant amount of pressure within the scientific community to not even look for a possible origin involving human error coming from a lab leak. The Lancet letter, being published by one of the most prestigious journals in the world, firmly established that COVID had a natural origin, and the media picked that up as evidence to rail against any possibility of a lab based origin. You can look at many of the articles published in the wake of the Lancet letter discrediting the lab leak, like Vox’s here: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus-china https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus... that literally quotes Daszak and Dennis Carroll, another signee of the Lancet letter who directly and without question say a lab leak is preposterous and unlikely. Is that good enough direct evidence for scientists pressuring the global discourse against a lab leak? Direct evidence of guilt is going to be hard considering the CPC’s reticence to allow an independent investigation, which honestly is another point in my opinion towards a lab leak. But regardless, regardless! When you combine the following facts: 1. There was a lab in Wuhan studying bat-related coronaviruses in gain of function research. 2. The virus was well adapted to humans at the beginning of the pandemic, very uncharacteristic of a zoonotic spillover. 3. The virus had no evidence of a natural origin then and it still doesn’t despite ones being found for MERS and SARS-1 within a few months. 4. Of the first 40 or so cases, not all could be definitively linked to the wet market that the CPC said the virus originated in. How could we not take a lab leak seriously? All 4 of those facts were true even last year, though 3 was a bit weaker since we’d only had a few months since case 0 and not the year and a half we do now. Our social media platforms should NEVER have been silencing this debate, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that its still even remotely controversial to bring it up. Calling it a conspiracy theory, when the questions I’m asking are profound and grounded in science that’s well agreed upon, does nobody any favors. Edit: For those who don’t read my original source, Daszak is the head of an organization EcoHealth Alliance that directly partnered with the WIV to study gain of function using bat-originated coronaviruses.
    - slg 5y ago
      >Is that good enough direct evidence for scientists pressuring the global discourse against a lab leak? No, because your accusation wasn't that they simply impacted global discourse. Your accusation was that they maliciously silenced discourse as an effort to avoid their own personal culpability. Where is the evidence for that? All four facts you list are circumstantial and you even admit that one of them wasn't truly known at the time this theory was first being popularized. To repeat myself, I don't think it is unreasonable to want more than that before leveling these accusations, especially when it is known ahead of time that some people will use your "questions" to support their own political and anti-scientific motives.
kyrra 5y ago
I think you've been reading too much left-wing propaganda. Certain groups within the political and media class love calling Tom Cotton and and Mike Pompeo racists, but that doesn't make it true. You can read Tom Cotton's April 21, 2020 op-ed[0] where he says the lab leak was a theory. If there are other writings or speeches from these 2 people that were talking about the lab leak theory where they were being racist, I would love to see it, but I don't think it exists (I'm happy to be corrected). [0] https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/-cotton-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-and-145coronavirus-and-the-laboratories-in-wuhan-and-146 https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/-cotton-op...
- slg 5y ago
  Both of those guys were pushing the lab leak theory from almost the very start and months before that press release you linked was written. Pompeo also got into multiple spats with other diplomats for specifically pushing people to call it the "Wuhan virus" in order to deflect blame towards China. Promotion of terms such as that likely resulted in more racial tension in the US. I didn't say the theory was only pushed by racists and I'm not going to call someone like Pompeo a racist just for supporting this theory, but he certainly fits in the opportunists category I mentioned in my previous comment. He clearly pushed the theory for political gain not some allegiance to finding the truth.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 5y ago
    There's multiple levels of blame to be given. You can say China is responsible for 100% of all deaths, but you can also be critical of the US response and ask how many additional deaths were due to a botched Federal response and a patchwork state-by-state approach. The fairest characterization would be to say both share some weight. We would expect China to have contained the outbreak to minimize the impact to itself and other nations, but we also expect the US to protect us from foreign viral/bacterial agents as a matter of national security.
    - slg 5y ago
      I agree with what you are saying here, but it doesn't change the fact that people like Pompeo were clearly trying to shift a greater percentage of the blame from the US to China and the lab origin theory was part of that effort.

by slg 5y ago

kaesar14 5y ago

The circumstantial evidence both then and now was largely favor of lab leaks. Members of the scientific community with a potential culpability in a lab leak helped silence discourse by framing it as a political issue as opposed to a scientific one, helped by America’s ever so controversial President coming out in support of a lab leak. With Trump gone and even more time elapsing with no reasonable natural origin of COVID found, a lab leak is back in the mainstream, even though we should’ve been discussing it from the beginning based on circumstantial evidence. It’s plainly evident that allowing these platforms to regulate our speech in this manner is poisonous. But whatever it takes to silence Trump and his ilk, I guess. Edit: I see I’ve been downvoted for this. I suggest people look at the facts themselves and decide whether a lab leak should’ve ever been dismissed as a crockpot theory. https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...

slg 5y ago
You can't just point to circumstantial evidence as justification for any theory you want. You are doing the exact same thing here. You have circumstantial evidence of a motive (scientists wanting to avoid culpability) and are taking it as justification that they are guilty of silencing discourse about the lab origin theory. Where is the direct evidence of either the lab origin or malicious silencing of discourse by Western scientists? I don't think it is unreasonable to wait for direct evidence of guilt before signing off on blaming someone for millions of deaths. That is a heavy accusation that needs to come with a degree of confidence that goes beyond the normal conspiracy theory approach of "just asking questions".
- kaesar14 5y ago
  You’re conflating two different things. Peter Daszak’s original statements and articles about COVID and its origins last year led to a significant amount of pressure within the scientific community to not even look for a possible origin involving human error coming from a lab leak. The Lancet letter, being published by one of the most prestigious journals in the world, firmly established that COVID had a natural origin, and the media picked that up as evidence to rail against any possibility of a lab based origin. You can look at many of the articles published in the wake of the Lancet letter discrediting the lab leak, like Vox’s here: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus-china https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus... that literally quotes Daszak and Dennis Carroll, another signee of the Lancet letter who directly and without question say a lab leak is preposterous and unlikely. Is that good enough direct evidence for scientists pressuring the global discourse against a lab leak? Direct evidence of guilt is going to be hard considering the CPC’s reticence to allow an independent investigation, which honestly is another point in my opinion towards a lab leak. But regardless, regardless! When you combine the following facts: 1. There was a lab in Wuhan studying bat-related coronaviruses in gain of function research. 2. The virus was well adapted to humans at the beginning of the pandemic, very uncharacteristic of a zoonotic spillover. 3. The virus had no evidence of a natural origin then and it still doesn’t despite ones being found for MERS and SARS-1 within a few months. 4. Of the first 40 or so cases, not all could be definitively linked to the wet market that the CPC said the virus originated in. How could we not take a lab leak seriously? All 4 of those facts were true even last year, though 3 was a bit weaker since we’d only had a few months since case 0 and not the year and a half we do now. Our social media platforms should NEVER have been silencing this debate, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that its still even remotely controversial to bring it up. Calling it a conspiracy theory, when the questions I’m asking are profound and grounded in science that’s well agreed upon, does nobody any favors. Edit: For those who don’t read my original source, Daszak is the head of an organization EcoHealth Alliance that directly partnered with the WIV to study gain of function using bat-originated coronaviruses.
  - slg 5y ago
    >Is that good enough direct evidence for scientists pressuring the global discourse against a lab leak? No, because your accusation wasn't that they simply impacted global discourse. Your accusation was that they maliciously silenced discourse as an effort to avoid their own personal culpability. Where is the evidence for that? All four facts you list are circumstantial and you even admit that one of them wasn't truly known at the time this theory was first being popularized. To repeat myself, I don't think it is unreasonable to want more than that before leveling these accusations, especially when it is known ahead of time that some people will use your "questions" to support their own political and anti-scientific motives.

kyrra 5y ago

I think you've been reading too much left-wing propaganda. Certain groups within the political and media class love calling Tom Cotton and and Mike Pompeo racists, but that doesn't make it true. You can read Tom Cotton's April 21, 2020 op-ed[0] where he says the lab leak was a theory. If there are other writings or speeches from these 2 people that were talking about the lab leak theory where they were being racist, I would love to see it, but I don't think it exists (I'm happy to be corrected). [0] https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/-cotton-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-and-145coronavirus-and-the-laboratories-in-wuhan-and-146 https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/-cotton-op...

slg 5y ago
Both of those guys were pushing the lab leak theory from almost the very start and months before that press release you linked was written. Pompeo also got into multiple spats with other diplomats for specifically pushing people to call it the "Wuhan virus" in order to deflect blame towards China. Promotion of terms such as that likely resulted in more racial tension in the US. I didn't say the theory was only pushed by racists and I'm not going to call someone like Pompeo a racist just for supporting this theory, but he certainly fits in the opportunists category I mentioned in my previous comment. He clearly pushed the theory for political gain not some allegiance to finding the truth.
- JMTQp8lwXL 5y ago
  There's multiple levels of blame to be given. You can say China is responsible for 100% of all deaths, but you can also be critical of the US response and ask how many additional deaths were due to a botched Federal response and a patchwork state-by-state approach. The fairest characterization would be to say both share some weight. We would expect China to have contained the outbreak to minimize the impact to itself and other nations, but we also expect the US to protect us from foreign viral/bacterial agents as a matter of national security.
  - slg 5y ago
    I agree with what you are saying here, but it doesn't change the fact that people like Pompeo were clearly trying to shift a greater percentage of the blame from the US to China and the lab origin theory was part of that effort.