6 ms·

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 hel

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.
    - kaesar14 5y ago
      My original claim was that the scientists who wrote that letter and went to the press saying it was a natural origin helped frame the debate in a political lens rather than a scientific one. It became politically expedient for many mainstream media outlets to claim the lab leak was a conspiracy theory based on statements made by scientists with clear conflicts of interest, in direct response to a sitting President claiming it was a lab leak. Should Trump have just gone out and said that without presenting a coherent argument? No, but the media shouldn’t have called lab leak discussion the talk of crackpot conspiracy theorists either. The evidence I listed is so strong that it’s now being seriously considered by many scientists, including Fauci who originally said it was far fetched. Saying its circumstantial to deride its importance is anti-scientific. And I’d clarify that even last year it was remarkable that the incredibly effective Chinese govt couldn’t produce evidence of a biological spillover 4 to 5 months after the first reported cases. I’m not saying any of these scientists were directly responsible. Was gain of function research irresponsible? Probably, yes. Should these scientists go to prison? Of course not, not without evidence of bad intent. But should we at least have been these discussions last year? Yes! That’s all I’m saying. Edit: I will point out that there is some serious evidence against Daszak for authoring that Lancet letter and declaring no conflict of interest when his org was partnering with WIV, which was the lab coming under scrutiny. That alone does deserve some serious investigation into why he’d lie about that. Him and any scientists who signed the letter who were also involved with Daszak or WIV.

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.
  - kaesar14 5y ago
    My original claim was that the scientists who wrote that letter and went to the press saying it was a natural origin helped frame the debate in a political lens rather than a scientific one. It became politically expedient for many mainstream media outlets to claim the lab leak was a conspiracy theory based on statements made by scientists with clear conflicts of interest, in direct response to a sitting President claiming it was a lab leak. Should Trump have just gone out and said that without presenting a coherent argument? No, but the media shouldn’t have called lab leak discussion the talk of crackpot conspiracy theorists either. The evidence I listed is so strong that it’s now being seriously considered by many scientists, including Fauci who originally said it was far fetched. Saying its circumstantial to deride its importance is anti-scientific. And I’d clarify that even last year it was remarkable that the incredibly effective Chinese govt couldn’t produce evidence of a biological spillover 4 to 5 months after the first reported cases. I’m not saying any of these scientists were directly responsible. Was gain of function research irresponsible? Probably, yes. Should these scientists go to prison? Of course not, not without evidence of bad intent. But should we at least have been these discussions last year? Yes! That’s all I’m saying. Edit: I will point out that there is some serious evidence against Daszak for authoring that Lancet letter and declaring no conflict of interest when his org was partnering with WIV, which was the lab coming under scrutiny. That alone does deserve some serious investigation into why he’d lie about that. Him and any scientists who signed the letter who were also involved with Daszak or WIV.