5 ms·

I have a hard time to take seriously any disinformation talk from the political and media establishment after the lab leak theory twist, where it had been shame

I have a hard time to take seriously any disinformation talk from the political and media establishment after the lab leak theory twist, where it had been shameful disinformation, until it suddenly wasn't. I have to be doubting publications even from reputable sources, after "The Lancet" fiasco, where the organizer of the open letter that condemned the lab leak theory was discovered to have ties with the lab in question, and some signatories confessed they'd signed it only because Trump had been promoting the theory. I can't help feeling that the recent war on "disinformation" is not waged in good faith. And since I have not so much trust in the alternative media either, I feel as a reasonable person I am easentially left in the dark.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
It's a hard one. Trump was promoting it when there was not enough evidence and was acting as it it was obvious. As a scientist you need to be much more careful and precise in what you say. As far as I can tell, what we have now are some very strong cues, but still no definitive proof (that might be impossible to have without the cooperation of the Chinese government).
- loonster 5y ago
  I would expect the president of the united states to have much more information available to him than the rest of the country. IIRC, Trump didn't start blaming China until China started blaming the USA for the spread during the military games that happened during the fall.
  - knownjorbist 5y ago
    Trump clearly is inconsistent on this front, since the entire IC was warning him about russian interference and that Putin specifically was doing everything in his power(while still maintaining plausible deniability) to get him into office. I think we can safely discard the notion that Trump would be reporting on anything the IC tells him.
Cybotron5000 5y ago
"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" ― John Maynard Keynes
- blfr 5y ago
  The facts didn't change. Only the narrative did.
- datastoat 5y ago
  What are the facts that changed, in this lab leak story? As far as I'm aware, our knowledge of the real-world facts haven't changed -- we're still in a position of great uncertainty. All that's changed is how various commentators are dealing with that uncertainty: they had been downplaying it, now they're acknowledging it.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  In this case what facts changed?
- bad_username 5y ago
  Changing minds is ok. Shaming and suppressing discussions outside the consensus is not ok.
- refurb 5y ago
  The facts didn’t change, only who was stating them. If the story was “Trump points to Covid leaking from lab in China, evidence is a sparse” then ok cool. But the story was “Lab leak conspiracy theory has been proven false but Trump continues to claim it’s true increasing Anti-Asian hate crimes” Then Biden starts to comment on it and like a light switch the theory becomes credible, even “likely”. And all the newspapers act like they had been saying that all along.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    I feel the story was your former example, not the latter. If anyone dismissed it as "proven false", they were wrong. But at the time (and now) there still is no evidence for it, which is an important detail when discussing.
prof-dr-ir 5y ago
If you are on the fence then it might be worth re-reading what the NY times wrote about it back then. For example, I could not find much wrong with this from February 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronavirus-tom-cotton-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronaviru... It does (correctly, IMO) focus on the 'bioweapon' conspiracies rather than the 'lab leak' theory and mentions how the senator ended up distancing himself from the former. And actually, the original letter in The Lancet might also not be entirely unreasonable? I cannot find fault with it, provided one interprets the phrase 'not have a natural origin' as 'engineered' (rather than 'leaked'). See here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... You should of course feel free to disagree, but it might be worth reading these sources before continuing the discussion? And maybe there are other articles I missed?
- adolph 5y ago
  With which version of Feb 2020 do you not find fault? https://web.archive.org/web/20200217083402/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronavirus-tom-cotton-china.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200217083402/https://www.nytim... https://web.archive.org/web/20210724164846/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronavirus-tom-cotton-china.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210724164846/https://www.nytim...
  - prof-dr-ir 5y ago
    The first of these is a stub and might be unclear on the meaning of "originated in". Again, if you read it as "engineered" I do not think I can disagree with its content. The second is the one I referred to and seems to have appeared at most a day later. Also - what exactly is your point? Like the other readers here I could probably be convinced that my example is bad, and you might even be able to make us adjust our opinion of the NY times. But right now I only see a suggestion of criticism rather than the raising of an actual issue. Would it be too much to ask you elaborate?
    - 5y ago
fortuna86 5y ago
> I have a hard time to take seriously any disinformation talk from the political and media establishment after the lab leak theory twist, where it had been shameful disinformation, until it suddenly wasn't. The "lab leak" theory hasn't actually changed any. Intelligence has the same conclusions as they had last year, they don't know. The only thing that has "changed" is the rabid reporting on the subject, either calling it 100% not true or "highly likely". Both conclusions are false, and any outlet reporting it as either one doesn't deserve your time. > and some signatories confessed they'd signed it only because Trump had been promoting the theory Source?
- fortuna86 5y ago
  Do you have a source for your claim?

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

It's a hard one. Trump was promoting it when there was not enough evidence and was acting as it it was obvious. As a scientist you need to be much more careful and precise in what you say. As far as I can tell, what we have now are some very strong cues, but still no definitive proof (that might be impossible to have without the cooperation of the Chinese government).

loonster 5y ago
I would expect the president of the united states to have much more information available to him than the rest of the country. IIRC, Trump didn't start blaming China until China started blaming the USA for the spread during the military games that happened during the fall.
- knownjorbist 5y ago
  Trump clearly is inconsistent on this front, since the entire IC was warning him about russian interference and that Putin specifically was doing everything in his power(while still maintaining plausible deniability) to get him into office. I think we can safely discard the notion that Trump would be reporting on anything the IC tells him.

Cybotron5000 5y ago

"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" ― John Maynard Keynes

blfr 5y ago
The facts didn't change. Only the narrative did.
datastoat 5y ago
What are the facts that changed, in this lab leak story? As far as I'm aware, our knowledge of the real-world facts haven't changed -- we're still in a position of great uncertainty. All that's changed is how various commentators are dealing with that uncertainty: they had been downplaying it, now they're acknowledging it.
fallingknife 5y ago
In this case what facts changed?
bad_username 5y ago
Changing minds is ok. Shaming and suppressing discussions outside the consensus is not ok.
refurb 5y ago
The facts didn’t change, only who was stating them. If the story was “Trump points to Covid leaking from lab in China, evidence is a sparse” then ok cool. But the story was “Lab leak conspiracy theory has been proven false but Trump continues to claim it’s true increasing Anti-Asian hate crimes” Then Biden starts to comment on it and like a light switch the theory becomes credible, even “likely”. And all the newspapers act like they had been saying that all along.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  I feel the story was your former example, not the latter. If anyone dismissed it as "proven false", they were wrong. But at the time (and now) there still is no evidence for it, which is an important detail when discussing.

prof-dr-ir 5y ago

If you are on the fence then it might be worth re-reading what the NY times wrote about it back then. For example, I could not find much wrong with this from February 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronavirus-tom-cotton-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronaviru... It does (correctly, IMO) focus on the 'bioweapon' conspiracies rather than the 'lab leak' theory and mentions how the senator ended up distancing himself from the former. And actually, the original letter in The Lancet might also not be entirely unreasonable? I cannot find fault with it, provided one interprets the phrase 'not have a natural origin' as 'engineered' (rather than 'leaked'). See here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... You should of course feel free to disagree, but it might be worth reading these sources before continuing the discussion? And maybe there are other articles I missed?

adolph 5y ago
With which version of Feb 2020 do you not find fault? https://web.archive.org/web/20200217083402/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronavirus-tom-cotton-china.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200217083402/https://www.nytim... https://web.archive.org/web/20210724164846/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronavirus-tom-cotton-china.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210724164846/https://www.nytim...
- prof-dr-ir 5y ago
  The first of these is a stub and might be unclear on the meaning of "originated in". Again, if you read it as "engineered" I do not think I can disagree with its content. The second is the one I referred to and seems to have appeared at most a day later. Also - what exactly is your point? Like the other readers here I could probably be convinced that my example is bad, and you might even be able to make us adjust our opinion of the NY times. But right now I only see a suggestion of criticism rather than the raising of an actual issue. Would it be too much to ask you elaborate?
  - 5y ago

fortuna86 5y ago

> I have a hard time to take seriously any disinformation talk from the political and media establishment after the lab leak theory twist, where it had been shameful disinformation, until it suddenly wasn't. The "lab leak" theory hasn't actually changed any. Intelligence has the same conclusions as they had last year, they don't know. The only thing that has "changed" is the rabid reporting on the subject, either calling it 100% not true or "highly likely". Both conclusions are false, and any outlet reporting it as either one doesn't deserve your time. > and some signatories confessed they'd signed it only because Trump had been promoting the theory Source?

fortuna86 5y ago
Do you have a source for your claim?