8 ms·

In isolation, there's nothing "bad" about it. And we don't have enough proof to say for sure it was nor that is was not a lab leak. That being said, there are

In isolation, there's nothing "bad" about it. And we don't have enough proof to say for sure it was nor that is was not a lab leak. That being said, there are a lot of confounding issues. Mostly political in nature. First, the vast majority of people who insisted on the lab leak theory did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat. And many trotted out terrible and conspiratorial reasonings for why the accidental lab leak theory was the "truth," many going to the point of it being an intentional leak and that it was designed in the lab by humans. Not to mention using these claims to suck up attention away from other things like actually handling the pandemic. And to pile on politically a China=bad narrative. So by association there's been a severe reluctance to add more ammo to this group's claims. Secondly, history and the nature of the spread put the chances more on the side of a zoological vector given the information we have now. Obviously this isn't 100% proven yet, but so far most are hedging on historical priors. Especially considering the conditions of farming and the fur industry that exists in China. So the majority of the community side against the lab leak as the most likely option. Of course, many scientists still leave open the option that it was a lab leak. We don't have enough information to completely be sure. And there's some odd circumstantial evidence that may point to a lab leak somehow. Including that China hasn't been the most forthcoming. Still, it's very much a minority opinion in the field at this time and many people insisting it "must be investigated" seem to be doing it for political reasons as cover for other purposes. Here's from Forbes an opinion piece about the current evidence we have so far about the origins and possible explanations. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/06/11/ask-ethan-how-can-you-be-so-sure-that-covid-19-didnt-happen-from-a-lab-leak/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/06/11/ask-...

api 5y ago
> did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat. I don't see how that works. The US funded some of the research in Wuhan and it was done in collaboration with US scientists. If the lab leak hypothesis is true both the USA and China could share the blame.
- Spellman 5y ago
  That's more of a recent development in my reckoning. The original form was almost purely China=bad. Then it has morphed to include some of the US scientists as more information came out. But specifically most (in the conspiracy group) are trying to tie it specifically to Dr Fauci who became a lightning rod for controversy and political attacks during the pandemic as he became the face of the government's response. Thus it's not all US scientists. Just the ones some don't like politically and who are "in bed with China." And furthermore, sure the US may have funded some of it, but at the end of the day China is the one who goofed. Of course, I'm speculating a lot and there are a lot of variations that I've seen for support for the lab leak theory. Just trying to summarize some of the hotter takes I've seen.
  - ketamine__ 5y ago
    It’s scientists that fund or support gain of function research at WIV. So anyone involved with Ecohealth is fair game. I don’t see anything political here. If Fauci and Daszak had come out against dangerous experiments at low biosafety levels we wouldn’t be talking about them.
  - 8note 5y ago
    More specifically, china is the location where somebody goofed. Sometimes it's in the US, sometimes, it's somewhere else. The goofing is guaranteed, unless you pay somebody to goof on your behalf
beaner 5y ago
> First, the vast majority of people who insisted on the lab leak theory did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat I don't think this describes a lot of people. On the contrary, this seems to be an assumption by people who seem to not want to discover the nature/cause of the virus. It's possible to want to "handle" the virus properly at home while also wanting to know what caused it, and that always seemed to me the predominant attitude among those who were open to the lab-leak idea.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
abnry 5y ago
> First, the vast majority of people who insisted on the lab leak theory did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat. If China did have a lab that leaked the virus, they _are_ to blame. To say that we shouldn't hold their feet to the fire if this is the case, well, that's a fine political opinion you can have. It may or may not be prudent. The essence of the argument why we shouldn't discuss the lab leak hypothesis is "people's feelings". In other words, feelings are more important than what is true. Truth should be the highest priority, damn whoever's political interests it will help. It is so sad that thinking of truth as too dangerous is part of today's milieu.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Isn’t this the problem? China knows there will be consequences if it was “China” who did it? Obviously a major ego bruising. Who cares who did it, naturally it will be more evidence that communist dictatorships aren’t the best way to run things, but they’re never going to share the truth if that means a flogging.
  - 8note 5y ago
    I'd think the biggest consequence would be that another virus is released or mutates that isn't china specific, and the governments are just as unprepared as they were in 2019, since they fixed the lab leak problem instead of the being prepared problem
  - smhost 5y ago
    You mean it would just be more evidence that communist republics aren't the best way to run things for America. China seems to be doing fine.
    - largbae 5y ago
      Absolutely, no freedom of speech to say otherwise!
- scotty79 5y ago
  If truth is unknowable next best thing to care about are feelings. And you pretty much can't disprove lab leak idea at this point because there can't exist any sufficient evidence against it to convince people who believe in it. Even if you just personally let them inside the lab and gave them access to all documents the only thing they would find would be next suspicious clues regardless of what would actually happened. And even if there was very little they managed to find suspicious they'd say it's because evidence was removed and they are being lied to.
dukeofdoom 5y ago
The conspiracy theory is that it might not necessarily lead to governments, but US tech giants like google paying for GOF research, while simultaneously censoring public dialog on social media.
ketamine__ 5y ago
I don’t think Richard Ebright is demanding an investigation for political reasons. He refers to Trump as a sociopath.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
> First, the vast majority of people who insisted on the lab leak theory did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat. And many trotted out terrible and conspiratorial reasonings for why the accidental lab leak theory was the "truth," many going to the point of it being an intentional leak and that it was designed in the lab by humans. Not to mention using these claims to suck up attention away from other things like actually handling the pandemic. And to pile on politically a China=bad narrative. So by association there's been a severe reluctance to add more ammo to this group's claims. How does not investigating help with those theories? There is a lab in Wuhan, they were working with coronaviruses, the infections seems to have started there, so logically someone points a finger... and the answer is "we won't investigate, because people are pointing fingers!"?
- liuliu 5y ago
  People expect a positive investigation result. Asking yourself, what kind of evidence would be "enough" to say it is not a lab leak? This is not obvious. Any negative result would beg deeper questions on trustworthiness of the given data, thoroughness of the research in this manner etc. No negative investigation result is acceptable to the public IMHO.
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    Even if it were true that "the public" would not accept an acquittal at trial (although they sure were quick to accept acquittal without a trial), what does that have to do with scientific investigation? If there were reasonable candidate ancestors for SARS-COV2 found in nature, it would support natural origin, and be "enough" for many current skeptics. The weight of evidence is currently in support of lab leak, regardless of opinion one way or the other.
ctrlp 5y ago
The lab leak was a valid hypothesis since early 2020 and credible scientists had been warning about the possibility of a leak, specifically from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, well before that. By April, there were long arguments with evidence being published, such as here https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throug.... These were not "China==bad" arguments. Just people willing to look at the facts. If anything, they were "gain-of-function research==bad" but the Obama administration had put the kibosh on funding GoF research in the US for similar concerns, so surely that was acceptable criticism. When Trump took office, it appears that Fauci took advantage of the chaotic transition period to quietly lift those prohibitions. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence to support that the virus was in fact "designed in the lab by humans" so not sure why you're lumping that in with "conspiratorial reasoning". Meanwhile, there was what looks like an actual conspiracy by prominent scientists led by Peter Daszak to mislead the public about the possible origins of the virus. These scientists intentionally, collectively, misled the public and hid their obvious conflicts of interests. Wouldn't that qualify as a conspiracy? History and the nature of the spread did not support a zoological origin of the virus. The likelihood of zoological vectors is an over-stated fever dream of gain-of-function grant seekers. If anything, the fact that ground zero for the virus was on the doorstep of the Wuhan Institute of Virology where the research specialty is bat coronaviruses suggests the null hypothesis is lab-leak. Zoonotic spread was a hypothesis that favored the actors likely responsible for the accident. The evidence that the virus escaped a lab is not merely circumstantial and certainly not merely that China is, er, not forthcoming. The principal evidence is in the structure of the virus itself. There are details of the virus spike protein that appear likely to have been created in a lab using a bat coronavirus as a base. The "debate" has been highly politicized, all right. But the politics has been mostly on the side pushing for a natural origin. Would it suprise you if CCP propagandists were involved in promoting the theory that points the blame anywhere but at the government of China, perhaps pushing the narrative that anyone who says otherwise is, wait for it, racist? Given how punishing the Chinese government can be to those who are perceived to oppose Chinese interests, and the many conflicts of interest vis a vis China and the Chinese market that exist in our government and science research industry, is it surprising that the narrative pushed by corporate media would relentlessly promote zoonotic and demote lab-leak? Assuming the virus did, in fact, come from a lab -- one that had been cited for lacking sufficient safety protocols and training for the research conducted there -- it's certainly reasonable to want to investigate and ensure it doesn't happen again. Who would that be "deflecting blame" from? And "scapegoat" implies that China wasn't to blame. If the virus originated from a government lab in Wuhan, then they are to blame. An opinion piece in Forbes by an astrophysicist on evolutionary microbiology is worth not much in my book. Despite looking really hard, we haven't found the missing link in nature that would support an evolutionary explanation for the odd protein sequences. Gain-of-function is the simpler explanation. Meanwhile, the CCP is apparently engaged in a cover-up now, putting out agitprop about bat-bites and other smokescreens. Why would they do that, do you think? I'm not even going to go into all the circumstantial evidence that connects our major GoF researchers and money to the Wuhan lab. That would take another long post.
himinlomax 5y ago
Deflect blame from what?

api 5y ago

> did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat. I don't see how that works. The US funded some of the research in Wuhan and it was done in collaboration with US scientists. If the lab leak hypothesis is true both the USA and China could share the blame.

Spellman 5y ago
That's more of a recent development in my reckoning. The original form was almost purely China=bad. Then it has morphed to include some of the US scientists as more information came out. But specifically most (in the conspiracy group) are trying to tie it specifically to Dr Fauci who became a lightning rod for controversy and political attacks during the pandemic as he became the face of the government's response. Thus it's not all US scientists. Just the ones some don't like politically and who are "in bed with China." And furthermore, sure the US may have funded some of it, but at the end of the day China is the one who goofed. Of course, I'm speculating a lot and there are a lot of variations that I've seen for support for the lab leak theory. Just trying to summarize some of the hotter takes I've seen.
- ketamine__ 5y ago
  It’s scientists that fund or support gain of function research at WIV. So anyone involved with Ecohealth is fair game. I don’t see anything political here. If Fauci and Daszak had come out against dangerous experiments at low biosafety levels we wouldn’t be talking about them.
- 8note 5y ago
  More specifically, china is the location where somebody goofed. Sometimes it's in the US, sometimes, it's somewhere else. The goofing is guaranteed, unless you pay somebody to goof on your behalf

beaner 5y ago

> First, the vast majority of people who insisted on the lab leak theory did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat I don't think this describes a lot of people. On the contrary, this seems to be an assumption by people who seem to not want to discover the nature/cause of the virus. It's possible to want to "handle" the virus properly at home while also wanting to know what caused it, and that always seemed to me the predominant attitude among those who were open to the lab-leak idea.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

abnry 5y ago

> First, the vast majority of people who insisted on the lab leak theory did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat. If China did have a lab that leaked the virus, they _are_ to blame. To say that we shouldn't hold their feet to the fire if this is the case, well, that's a fine political opinion you can have. It may or may not be prudent. The essence of the argument why we shouldn't discuss the lab leak hypothesis is "people's feelings". In other words, feelings are more important than what is true. Truth should be the highest priority, damn whoever's political interests it will help. It is so sad that thinking of truth as too dangerous is part of today's milieu.

bamboozled 5y ago
Isn’t this the problem? China knows there will be consequences if it was “China” who did it? Obviously a major ego bruising. Who cares who did it, naturally it will be more evidence that communist dictatorships aren’t the best way to run things, but they’re never going to share the truth if that means a flogging.
- 8note 5y ago
  I'd think the biggest consequence would be that another virus is released or mutates that isn't china specific, and the governments are just as unprepared as they were in 2019, since they fixed the lab leak problem instead of the being prepared problem
- smhost 5y ago
  You mean it would just be more evidence that communist republics aren't the best way to run things for America. China seems to be doing fine.
  - largbae 5y ago
    Absolutely, no freedom of speech to say otherwise!
scotty79 5y ago
If truth is unknowable next best thing to care about are feelings. And you pretty much can't disprove lab leak idea at this point because there can't exist any sufficient evidence against it to convince people who believe in it. Even if you just personally let them inside the lab and gave them access to all documents the only thing they would find would be next suspicious clues regardless of what would actually happened. And even if there was very little they managed to find suspicious they'd say it's because evidence was removed and they are being lied to.

dukeofdoom 5y ago

The conspiracy theory is that it might not necessarily lead to governments, but US tech giants like google paying for GOF research, while simultaneously censoring public dialog on social media.

ketamine__ 5y ago

I don’t think Richard Ebright is demanding an investigation for political reasons. He refers to Trump as a sociopath.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

> First, the vast majority of people who insisted on the lab leak theory did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat. And many trotted out terrible and conspiratorial reasonings for why the accidental lab leak theory was the "truth," many going to the point of it being an intentional leak and that it was designed in the lab by humans. Not to mention using these claims to suck up attention away from other things like actually handling the pandemic. And to pile on politically a China=bad narrative. So by association there's been a severe reluctance to add more ammo to this group's claims. How does not investigating help with those theories? There is a lab in Wuhan, they were working with coronaviruses, the infections seems to have started there, so logically someone points a finger... and the answer is "we won't investigate, because people are pointing fingers!"?

liuliu 5y ago
People expect a positive investigation result. Asking yourself, what kind of evidence would be "enough" to say it is not a lab leak? This is not obvious. Any negative result would beg deeper questions on trustworthiness of the given data, thoroughness of the research in this manner etc. No negative investigation result is acceptable to the public IMHO.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  Even if it were true that "the public" would not accept an acquittal at trial (although they sure were quick to accept acquittal without a trial), what does that have to do with scientific investigation? If there were reasonable candidate ancestors for SARS-COV2 found in nature, it would support natural origin, and be "enough" for many current skeptics. The weight of evidence is currently in support of lab leak, regardless of opinion one way or the other.

ctrlp 5y ago

The lab leak was a valid hypothesis since early 2020 and credible scientists had been warning about the possibility of a leak, specifically from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, well before that. By April, there were long arguments with evidence being published, such as here https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throug.... These were not "China==bad" arguments. Just people willing to look at the facts. If anything, they were "gain-of-function research==bad" but the Obama administration had put the kibosh on funding GoF research in the US for similar concerns, so surely that was acceptable criticism. When Trump took office, it appears that Fauci took advantage of the chaotic transition period to quietly lift those prohibitions. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence to support that the virus was in fact "designed in the lab by humans" so not sure why you're lumping that in with "conspiratorial reasoning". Meanwhile, there was what looks like an actual conspiracy by prominent scientists led by Peter Daszak to mislead the public about the possible origins of the virus. These scientists intentionally, collectively, misled the public and hid their obvious conflicts of interests. Wouldn't that qualify as a conspiracy? History and the nature of the spread did not support a zoological origin of the virus. The likelihood of zoological vectors is an over-stated fever dream of gain-of-function grant seekers. If anything, the fact that ground zero for the virus was on the doorstep of the Wuhan Institute of Virology where the research specialty is bat coronaviruses suggests the null hypothesis is lab-leak. Zoonotic spread was a hypothesis that favored the actors likely responsible for the accident. The evidence that the virus escaped a lab is not merely circumstantial and certainly not merely that China is, er, not forthcoming. The principal evidence is in the structure of the virus itself. There are details of the virus spike protein that appear likely to have been created in a lab using a bat coronavirus as a base. The "debate" has been highly politicized, all right. But the politics has been mostly on the side pushing for a natural origin. Would it suprise you if CCP propagandists were involved in promoting the theory that points the blame anywhere but at the government of China, perhaps pushing the narrative that anyone who says otherwise is, wait for it, racist? Given how punishing the Chinese government can be to those who are perceived to oppose Chinese interests, and the many conflicts of interest vis a vis China and the Chinese market that exist in our government and science research industry, is it surprising that the narrative pushed by corporate media would relentlessly promote zoonotic and demote lab-leak? Assuming the virus did, in fact, come from a lab -- one that had been cited for lacking sufficient safety protocols and training for the research conducted there -- it's certainly reasonable to want to investigate and ensure it doesn't happen again. Who would that be "deflecting blame" from? And "scapegoat" implies that China wasn't to blame. If the virus originated from a government lab in Wuhan, then they are to blame. An opinion piece in Forbes by an astrophysicist on evolutionary microbiology is worth not much in my book. Despite looking really hard, we haven't found the missing link in nature that would support an evolutionary explanation for the odd protein sequences. Gain-of-function is the simpler explanation. Meanwhile, the CCP is apparently engaged in a cover-up now, putting out agitprop about bat-bites and other smokescreens. Why would they do that, do you think? I'm not even going to go into all the circumstantial evidence that connects our major GoF researchers and money to the Wuhan lab. That would take another long post.

himinlomax 5y ago

Deflect blame from what?