4 ms·

There is no smoking gun kind of evidence because PRC blocked all efforts to properly investigate this. This is obviously a red flag in itself. There is plenty

by tpmx 5y ago

There is no smoking gun kind of evidence because PRC blocked all efforts to properly investigate this. This is obviously a red flag in itself. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence.

hh3k0 5y ago
> There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Yeah. It doesn't sit right with me that Peter Daszak, who has close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was the driving force behind the February 2020 Lancet letter of scientists "strongly condemning conspiracy theories" like the lab-leak theory – all without disclosing that conflict of interest. Daszak should testify before congress.
black6 5y ago
Wuhan has a biolab. That biolab specializes in coronaviruses. That biolab was funded, in part, by the US NIH to conduct gain of function (a rose by any other name...) on coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus. The SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak was first observed in Wuhan. It's such a logical chain of circumstantial evidence, and They expected everyone to believe that it came from a fucking pangolin?
- thedorkknight 5y ago
  Who is the "They" that you all keep mentioning? I haven't heard anyone push the pangolin theory since, like, March 2020. I listen to the podcast "This Week in Virology" a lot and can only remember them occasionally addressing it as a discarded theory. It seems to me like people are talking about some Boogeyman here. I need specifics on this "they" because otherwise it just comes across as rhetoric
- drran 5y ago
  Who will discover a new virus faster? A researcher from a specialized lab or a random guy?
bradford 5y ago
China has routinely been opaque, blocking investigations over all sorts of things. I don't like it either but I think it's premature to use it as evidence of malice on China's part.
- thereisnospork 5y ago
  > China has routinely been opaque, blocking investigations over all sorts of things. I don't like it either but I think it's premature to use it as evidence of malice on China's part. China (and everyone else) doesn't get to have their cake an eat it too. They want to be opaque as national policy, that's their prerogative, but they don't get to do so and expect positive inference regarding what is behind the curtain. In other words, assuming the worst plausible scenario is the only, or at least a, rational interpretation of possibilities against a policy of intentional opacity.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    Is America going to let Chinese investigators start combing through their labs and almost the populace to see if an alternate domestic theory that it originated in the US earlier (after all, there’s been reports that it was in NYC in fall 2019 already). Can you see how a government might be concerned about keeping an adversary do that because of the sovereignty violation it brings up as well as concerns about spies being part of that group (eg how the CIA used a vaccination program as cover to find Bin Laden in Pakistan)? It’s not the only rational explanation. It’s just the one you choose to prefer (and it might perhaps be the most plausible given how the Chinese government appears to operate, but it’s not beyond reasonable doubt). Heck, this was the theory behind invading Iraq and looks like the US never did find those WMDs.

by tpmx 5y ago

There is no smoking gun kind of evidence because PRC blocked all efforts to properly investigate this. This is obviously a red flag in itself. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence.

hh3k0 5y ago

> There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Yeah. It doesn't sit right with me that Peter Daszak, who has close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was the driving force behind the February 2020 Lancet letter of scientists "strongly condemning conspiracy theories" like the lab-leak theory – all without disclosing that conflict of interest. Daszak should testify before congress.

black6 5y ago

Wuhan has a biolab. That biolab specializes in coronaviruses. That biolab was funded, in part, by the US NIH to conduct gain of function (a rose by any other name...) on coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus. The SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak was first observed in Wuhan. It's such a logical chain of circumstantial evidence, and They expected everyone to believe that it came from a fucking pangolin?

thedorkknight 5y ago
Who is the "They" that you all keep mentioning? I haven't heard anyone push the pangolin theory since, like, March 2020. I listen to the podcast "This Week in Virology" a lot and can only remember them occasionally addressing it as a discarded theory. It seems to me like people are talking about some Boogeyman here. I need specifics on this "they" because otherwise it just comes across as rhetoric
drran 5y ago
Who will discover a new virus faster? A researcher from a specialized lab or a random guy?

bradford 5y ago

China has routinely been opaque, blocking investigations over all sorts of things. I don't like it either but I think it's premature to use it as evidence of malice on China's part.

thereisnospork 5y ago
> China has routinely been opaque, blocking investigations over all sorts of things. I don't like it either but I think it's premature to use it as evidence of malice on China's part. China (and everyone else) doesn't get to have their cake an eat it too. They want to be opaque as national policy, that's their prerogative, but they don't get to do so and expect positive inference regarding what is behind the curtain. In other words, assuming the worst plausible scenario is the only, or at least a, rational interpretation of possibilities against a policy of intentional opacity.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  Is America going to let Chinese investigators start combing through their labs and almost the populace to see if an alternate domestic theory that it originated in the US earlier (after all, there’s been reports that it was in NYC in fall 2019 already). Can you see how a government might be concerned about keeping an adversary do that because of the sovereignty violation it brings up as well as concerns about spies being part of that group (eg how the CIA used a vaccination program as cover to find Bin Laden in Pakistan)? It’s not the only rational explanation. It’s just the one you choose to prefer (and it might perhaps be the most plausible given how the Chinese government appears to operate, but it’s not beyond reasonable doubt). Heck, this was the theory behind invading Iraq and looks like the US never did find those WMDs.