3 ms·

Unpopular comment on HN I'm sure, but I know a few people who work in various infectious diseases labs - one of which sits in with policy makers and is one of t

by junon 5y ago

Unpopular comment on HN I'm sure, but I know a few people who work in various infectious diseases labs - one of which sits in with policy makers and is one of the referred to when those officials talk about their "expert advisors". None of them believe it was a lab leak. All of them believe it was a spill over or a wet market incident. Anecdotal, I'm aware. But I'm personally yielding to those people who work in the same building as the world's deadliest diseases, who have all of the information and have all of their (usually multiple) degrees. Lab leak is juicy. It would give us someone to blame. That's human nature to want it to be true. But nothing I've heard aside from news outlets and conspiracy theorists gives me any reason to believe it's a lab leak.

mizzack 5y ago
Lab leak, if true, would be damaging to the flexibility of their work and bring further scrutiny toward future funding of said work. They have incentive for it to not be true.
- junon 5y ago
  No, it wouldn't. They're not the ones who had the leak, if true.
  - baja_blast 5y ago
    yes it would, just because it just so happened to take place at another lab does not mean the public and regulators are going to ignore the dangerous research other labs are conducting. No one wants to be the next Wuhan, but it's only a matter of time until the next coincidence happens in a city with a major lab. A lab origin could not only tank their future prospects due to massive restrictions and funding bans, but it would also severely stigmatize their profession. They'll be viewed as Frankenstiens
    - junon 5y ago
      I think you grossly misunderstand how infectious disease research works.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
I already have someone to blame and it was a President too stupid to wear a mask that sent thousands to their deaths. A president that instigated an era of not believing the news or experts and introduced a culture of “alternate facts”, otherwise known as lies, that have caused the current anti-vaccine idiocy. 695,000 Americans dead so far.
- junon 5y ago
  That has nothing to do with my point.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Maybe if news weren't hell bent on personal attacks disregarding any truth things might be different... I entirely blame media, I think most of them should be banned from operating.
linuxftw 5y ago
There's an alleged whistleblower that says it's a lab leak. Someone that was on the ground and had access to information. That's not a conspiracy theory. Whether or not you believe this person, that's up to you.
- moate 5y ago
  Let's break down the phrase: "Conspiracy": A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful; the action of plotting or conspiring. "Theory": A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. What you're offering is a conspiracy theory. It's a possible explanation for an event that alleges a conspiracy (either the cover up of an accidental leak or malicious intentional leak). Adding "do your own research/it's up to you to believe" at the end of a conspiracy theory doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The phrase "conspiracy theory" carries baggage beyond that of the individual definitions of the two words.
    - moate 5y ago
      Oh I get that, but that's my point. Saying "this isn't a conspiracy theory because that phrase has negative connotations I don't want associated with MY conspiracy theory" isn't going to make it not a conspiracy theory. I firmly believe Epstein didn't kill himself. I'm aware it's a conspiracy theory. Let's call a spade a spade.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    Here's a 'conspiracy theory:' I think org XYZ is doing nefarious things because X happened and it's in their best interest to cover it up. See, there's no first hand evidence, there's just raw speculation. A whistleblower, on the other hand, claims to have a 1st hand account of nefarious or at the least misleading actions of a particular entity. I didn't offer any theories. The person making the claim isn't offering theories, they're offering first hand accounts. If you say this person is lying for political purposes, it's you who's creating a conspiracy theory.

by junon 5y ago

mizzack 5y ago

Lab leak, if true, would be damaging to the flexibility of their work and bring further scrutiny toward future funding of said work. They have incentive for it to not be true.

junon 5y ago
No, it wouldn't. They're not the ones who had the leak, if true.
- baja_blast 5y ago
  yes it would, just because it just so happened to take place at another lab does not mean the public and regulators are going to ignore the dangerous research other labs are conducting. No one wants to be the next Wuhan, but it's only a matter of time until the next coincidence happens in a city with a major lab. A lab origin could not only tank their future prospects due to massive restrictions and funding bans, but it would also severely stigmatize their profession. They'll be viewed as Frankenstiens
  - junon 5y ago
    I think you grossly misunderstand how infectious disease research works.

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

I already have someone to blame and it was a President too stupid to wear a mask that sent thousands to their deaths. A president that instigated an era of not believing the news or experts and introduced a culture of “alternate facts”, otherwise known as lies, that have caused the current anti-vaccine idiocy. 695,000 Americans dead so far.

junon 5y ago
That has nothing to do with my point.
Ekaros 5y ago
Maybe if news weren't hell bent on personal attacks disregarding any truth things might be different... I entirely blame media, I think most of them should be banned from operating.

linuxftw 5y ago

There's an alleged whistleblower that says it's a lab leak. Someone that was on the ground and had access to information. That's not a conspiracy theory. Whether or not you believe this person, that's up to you.

moate 5y ago
Let's break down the phrase: "Conspiracy": A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful; the action of plotting or conspiring. "Theory": A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. What you're offering is a conspiracy theory. It's a possible explanation for an event that alleges a conspiracy (either the cover up of an accidental leak or malicious intentional leak). Adding "do your own research/it's up to you to believe" at the end of a conspiracy theory doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  The phrase "conspiracy theory" carries baggage beyond that of the individual definitions of the two words.
  - moate 5y ago
    Oh I get that, but that's my point. Saying "this isn't a conspiracy theory because that phrase has negative connotations I don't want associated with MY conspiracy theory" isn't going to make it not a conspiracy theory. I firmly believe Epstein didn't kill himself. I'm aware it's a conspiracy theory. Let's call a spade a spade.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  Here's a 'conspiracy theory:' I think org XYZ is doing nefarious things because X happened and it's in their best interest to cover it up. See, there's no first hand evidence, there's just raw speculation. A whistleblower, on the other hand, claims to have a 1st hand account of nefarious or at the least misleading actions of a particular entity. I didn't offer any theories. The person making the claim isn't offering theories, they're offering first hand accounts. If you say this person is lying for political purposes, it's you who's creating a conspiracy theory.