3 ms·
Agreed - dismissing the lab-leak theory early on without conclusive evidence either way was certainly suspicious. Any scientist worth his/her salt shouldn't di
by whydoyoucare 5y ago
Agreed - dismissing the lab-leak theory early on without conclusive evidence either way was certainly suspicious.
Any scientist worth his/her salt shouldn't dismiss any theory outright without having hard data to back it up.
- mbauman 5y agoThere are two things going on here: - There's strong evidence that it's not bioengineered; scientists used very strong and convincing language here. - There was initially hope of finding the zoonotic reservoir; scientists used couched language here to subtly detangle a natural virus vs. a natural virus that had adapted to passage in cell culture in a lab, and had priors assuming a zoonotic source would be found. Guess which language journalists glommed onto.
- shard972 5y agoyour talking shit that this was just journos, this was scientists shutting down public debate and tech companies banning people for discussing it. Don't try and pretend like this is just another case of journos making shitty headlines because your fucking lying.
- baja_blast 5y agoVirologists have a bias against the lab leak theory because if true it would threaten their careers. If it's natural on the other hand they get a boost in funding. It makes sense they are so against the idea, no one wants to be associated with/partially responsible for the death of 4 million + people worldwide, nor do they want to have their careers ruined.