3 ms·

If the smoking gun in the case is 'they must be guilty because they behaved like X' then we test this hypothesis by replacing 'CCP' with 'USA' (or the more apt

If the smoking gun in the case is 'they must be guilty because they behaved like X' then we test this hypothesis by replacing 'CCP' with 'USA' (or the more apt swap would be 'RNC') and see how it look. It turns out that when you do this simple find and replace, we get equally as factual statements. So does this imply that it leaked from a US operated facility? Or is this an indication of the type of work the US was funding at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and conducting more generally? Or most likely, is this an irrelevant piece of 'evidence' of wrong doing on the part of any person or nation by assuming guilt based on their claim of innocence? An innocent person will say they were innocent just as often as a guilty person who is trying to hide their guilt.

dkersten 5y ago
> It turns out that when you do this simple find and replace, we get equally as factual statements. Only if you ignore the known facts. We know that covid-19 originated from wuhan, we know that the wuhan institute of virology was studying that exact virus. We know that the CCP did not allow the WHO to investigate the WIV hypotheses until over a year later. Yes the USA acted shady, but the USA doesn’t have these addictions factual contributing elements. These factors don’t prove anything, of course, I never said that they do, but they certainly paint a picture that shows that the lab leak hypothesis is at least viable and the alternatives require some coincidences to be true. Again not proof, but certainly evidence that shouldn’t be ignored. The USA analogy is ignoring all of the other factual information we have and is focusing purely on “well China isn’t the only country acting shady”, which I don’t think is relevant or useful. CCP aren’t the only ones responsible for where we are today, but they were a rather key part of it, regardless whether covid-19 was a lab leak or not. > by assuming guilt based on their claim of innocence? It’s not their claim of innocence that is suspicious, it’s their actively suppressing information that is: they didn’t allow the WHO to investigate until over a year later and they didn’t allow scientists and doctors to acknowledge there was a virus. More recently they even tried to say the virus originated in countries other than China. That’s rather more than a claim of innocence.

dkersten 5y ago

> It turns out that when you do this simple find and replace, we get equally as factual statements. Only if you ignore the known facts. We know that covid-19 originated from wuhan, we know that the wuhan institute of virology was studying that exact virus. We know that the CCP did not allow the WHO to investigate the WIV hypotheses until over a year later. Yes the USA acted shady, but the USA doesn’t have these addictions factual contributing elements. These factors don’t prove anything, of course, I never said that they do, but they certainly paint a picture that shows that the lab leak hypothesis is at least viable and the alternatives require some coincidences to be true. Again not proof, but certainly evidence that shouldn’t be ignored. The USA analogy is ignoring all of the other factual information we have and is focusing purely on “well China isn’t the only country acting shady”, which I don’t think is relevant or useful. CCP aren’t the only ones responsible for where we are today, but they were a rather key part of it, regardless whether covid-19 was a lab leak or not. > by assuming guilt based on their claim of innocence? It’s not their claim of innocence that is suspicious, it’s their actively suppressing information that is: they didn’t allow the WHO to investigate until over a year later and they didn’t allow scientists and doctors to acknowledge there was a virus. More recently they even tried to say the virus originated in countries other than China. That’s rather more than a claim of innocence.