4 ms·

I remember the original theory going round that was getting removed being that it was a lab leak of a bioweapon not the current theory that it was more normal '

by rtkwe 5y ago

I remember the original theory going round that was getting removed being that it was a lab leak of a bioweapon not the current theory that it was more normal 'gain of function' research that got out. Those are two very different accusations.

hackererror404 5y ago
If we are honest however, these are theories however "unfounded" they might be... Science is a continual pursuit of what is accurate and even then when we have a scientific proof, it's often not always permanent. It was a theory that this came from a lab. It was perhaps another theory that the lab was working on this perhaps in part as a bioweapon. We can get into the politics of why China in general can't really be trusted and so who the heck knows... and that of course leads to skepticism and theories such as these. These theories may or may not be true the same way "covid-19" came from a wet market may or may not be true. It's okay to say we don't know, here are some theories... That's science. We should try to get to the bottom of it so that whatever happened is exposed and we can learn from this. A third party getting in the way and deciding based on who knows what, what theories are okay to talk about and what theories are not okay to talk about is a horrible idea. Perhaps Google is working on a multi-billion dollar deal with China to put Google in all of the phones made in China? You better believe that if China told Google, "Hey this theory is false (trust us), you better take down anything that talks about it"... Google would be very pressured to comply.
- amznthrwaway 5y ago
  It’s absolutely fucking idiotic to pretend that Google’s policy is slowing down research on the virus. I get that you’re just a dishonest asshole, arguing in bad faith. But give us a break.. literally nobody is stupid enough to think that this slowed down real research on the virus.
brippalcharrid 5y ago
How could we tell the difference without knowing the motivations of the people responsible for it? Has their conduct been likely to inspire confidence that they were on the up-and-up? Gain-of-function research is used for offensive as well as defensive purposes; it is inherently dual-use, and it can be hard to draw a line between the two. We aren't in a position to be able to exclude the possibility that this research was being carried out with the intention of being transferred to pure weapons development once suitable candidate pathogens had been developed.
GauntletWizard 5y ago
They are exactly the same accusation, with the only difference between them whether that researcher is your friend or your enemy. It is, much like security research, easy to predict but hard to be certain which is which until it's been deployed.

by rtkwe 5y ago

hackererror404 5y ago

If we are honest however, these are theories however "unfounded" they might be... Science is a continual pursuit of what is accurate and even then when we have a scientific proof, it's often not always permanent. It was a theory that this came from a lab. It was perhaps another theory that the lab was working on this perhaps in part as a bioweapon. We can get into the politics of why China in general can't really be trusted and so who the heck knows... and that of course leads to skepticism and theories such as these. These theories may or may not be true the same way "covid-19" came from a wet market may or may not be true. It's okay to say we don't know, here are some theories... That's science. We should try to get to the bottom of it so that whatever happened is exposed and we can learn from this. A third party getting in the way and deciding based on who knows what, what theories are okay to talk about and what theories are not okay to talk about is a horrible idea. Perhaps Google is working on a multi-billion dollar deal with China to put Google in all of the phones made in China? You better believe that if China told Google, "Hey this theory is false (trust us), you better take down anything that talks about it"... Google would be very pressured to comply.

amznthrwaway 5y ago
It’s absolutely fucking idiotic to pretend that Google’s policy is slowing down research on the virus. I get that you’re just a dishonest asshole, arguing in bad faith. But give us a break.. literally nobody is stupid enough to think that this slowed down real research on the virus.

brippalcharrid 5y ago

How could we tell the difference without knowing the motivations of the people responsible for it? Has their conduct been likely to inspire confidence that they were on the up-and-up? Gain-of-function research is used for offensive as well as defensive purposes; it is inherently dual-use, and it can be hard to draw a line between the two. We aren't in a position to be able to exclude the possibility that this research was being carried out with the intention of being transferred to pure weapons development once suitable candidate pathogens had been developed.

GauntletWizard 5y ago

They are exactly the same accusation, with the only difference between them whether that researcher is your friend or your enemy. It is, much like security research, easy to predict but hard to be certain which is which until it's been deployed.