7 ms·

I’m a flaming liberal but I still thought we should at least pursue the lab leak hypothesis for one simple reason. I was a scientist and I’ve seen the lax way

I’m a flaming liberal but I still thought we should at least pursue the lab leak hypothesis for one simple reason. I was a scientist and I’ve seen the lax way people treat biohazardous samples and just how fallible humans are. After going down a long rabbit hole I lean towards non lab leak, but if we can’t ask questions because of politicization of ideas we are done.

ralmidani 5y ago
Does “flaming liberal” === excusing the CCP’s behavior? At least in the US, the CCP is condemned by most politicians from across the classic liberal-conservative spectrum.
- suction 5y ago
  "Liberal" in the US policy-wise is extremely conservative in most Western European countries, for example Merkel's party CDU is a "right of center conservative" party in Germany but would be far left in the US. Maybe it's not comparable, coming to think of it, because morals and values are so extremely different in Europe and the US.
  - explodingcamera 5y ago
    I don't know why people keep saying this, but there's no way in hell the CDU is far left. The CDU is a historically conservative center to slightly right party, and if they didn't need the votes, the current politicians in charge would go further to the right. A couple of years ago, the CDU lost many voters to the AFD, which is a far right extremist party, and many CDU politicians still sympathize with them, while no other party in Germany collaborates with the AFD. Getting pro gay, trans, and abortion laws through was hell with the CDU in power.
    - reactor4 5y ago
      [...] would be far left in the US.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    The CDU has very similar policies to Democrats. They would be completely within the overton window here.
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  No I despise the stifling of human freedom caused by the Chinese government.
- labster 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - sriram_malhar 5y ago
    Nope. It is not a given that liberals "reflexively" do the opposite of Trump. There's a huge shared overlap about a distrust of China. I know that I rejected the lab leak theory because of WHO's press release and articles on foreignpolicy.com, but at that time I didn't know about the conflict of interest.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      And even with the conflict of interest, all the evidence available points to a zooonosis, not a lab leak.
- haswell 5y ago
  I’m curious how/why being a “flaming liberal” would ever lead to “excusing the CCP’s behavior”?
  - ralmidani 5y ago
    It shouldn’t. That’s why I asked the question.
    - haswell 5y ago
      I don’t understand why the question needed to be asked in the first place. There’s no reason to assume such support based on the “flaming liberal” designation, so asking the question can only be interpreted as some form of accusation or implication that such a relationship does exist.
      - ralmidani 5y ago
        From GP’s post: “I’m a flaming liberal but I still thought we should at least pursue the lab leak hypothesis…” I was questioning the relationship between the two parts of that sentence, that’s all.
        haswell 5y ago
        While the lab leak hypothesis has been politicized, yes, I still see no connection between liberalism and support of the CCP. And again I ask: how does being a liberal and supporting the investigation of the lab leak hypothesis have any connection to supporting CCP behavior? The only possible conclusion I can draw is that you’re implying those liberals who don’t think lab leak should be discussed are somehow implicitly supporting the CCP, but this does not logically follow either.
rvba 5y ago
It is very obvious that "gain of function" research described here is basally manufacturing biological weapons, but supposedly this is done "the good of all humans" what is just another communist party slogan. Where are the vaccines or medicine invented by this facility? I can understand storing and analyzing the viruses. Yet gain of function is basically bioweapon research. How is this even allowed when it breaks bioweapon conventions? Also isnt the famous wet market in Wuhan like 300 yards from the Chinese center for disease and control building? (Not to be confused with other buildings in same town).
- forgotmyoldname 5y ago
  > but supposedly this is done "the good of all humans" what is just another communist party slogan. Keep in mind research done there was an international effort. Some things being strongly funded and supported mostly be other countries.
  - rvba 5y ago
    International effort or not, still a biological weapon. It looks that China was collecting viruses (what makes a lot of sense) + also cooking some biological weapons on the side. They didnt call it "biological weapon production", they called it "gain of function research", but it is still the same thing. USA paid some money to be able to access this data (makes sense, the more data you have, the better) + probably they wanted to spy on the Chinese to see what is happening. Unfortunately they send people such as Daszak, who in my opinion looks like a Chinese double-agent, or someone bribed by China to be their mouth-piece. Still we are moving away from the discussion: this "research" is basically against Biological Research Convention ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention ). And yes, I know that Russia signed the convention but does not abide it - they manufacture lots of biological weapons. But it is another problem.
    - forgotmyoldname 5y ago
      > who in my opinion looks like a Chinese double-agent, or someone bribed by China to be their mouth-piece. Are you an authority on the subject or are you making an unfalsifiable claim?
downrightmike 5y ago
China had to slaughter and dispose of millions of pigs up to november 2019. There were stories of drones being used to infect pig farms through the summer to drive up pork prices. Odds are that this was covered up so much that when it hit the breaking point, people blamed the lab, even though wuhan is down stream from farm lands.
- ummonk 5y ago
  Are you referring to the outbreak of African swine flu? What does that have to do with coronavirus?
  - downrightmike 5y ago
    Realistically they were over taxed and they missed the SARs outbreak. Probably why they are using draconian methods still and welding people into their homes, to make up for their lax action.
  - JackFr 5y ago
    Is “African” swine flu acceptable? Or does that gate only swing one way?
ummonk 5y ago
Not just that, but the long history of lab leaks (with e.g. smallpox and SARS) that indicates lab leaks are not an unusual occurrence. I too think the evidence in this particular virus comes down on the side of a natural origin, but the a priori denial of the possibility (and need for investigation) of a lab leak early in the pandemic was really unjustified. In fairness, the right wing demands to sanction (or even attack) China certainly didn't help things.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Lab leaks of known pathogens being studied aren’t unusual.
  - chana_masala 5y ago
    Are you meaning it is or is not a frequent occurrence? Because the way you've phrased it here it seems that you agree with the OP but I suspect you meant the opposite.
- zpeti 5y ago
  What evidence comes down to it being of natural origin? I’m genuinely curious because I haven’t seen much “evidence” of it.
  - prestonh 5y ago
    I don't think there's much direct evidence to support natural spillover event other than that much of the initial spread could be localized to a wet market, which may have had vendors selling meat from animals known to carry these types of viruses. That seems like pretty weak evidence, though. Other than that, IMO we should have very high prior weight assigned to the natural origin hypothesis in the Bayesian sense, so even without new direct evidence it's still reasonable to believe that hypothesis to be more likely.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      About 60% of all diseases is the result of spillover, and that's only the part that we can trace. The null hypothesis is that this was a spillover, anything else requires hard evidence, not the other way around. There are numerous recent cases of documented spillover, but there isn't a single documented case of a lab leak leading to a major outbreak. The people that keep pushing that angle are usually not in this for the science but to stoke the fire.
stef25 5y ago
Accusations should be ignored when asking valid scientific questions. Imagine a scientist not being curious about HIV in its early days because of homophobia (it was definitely a thing but the right people ignored it). Maybe the analogy isn't perfect ... I didn't want to open a can of worms but hopefully you get my point :)
VoodooJuJu 5y ago
It is infinitely disturbing that political sides are a factor in determining whether to pursue justice and truth, in this case, the Covid-19 lab leak question.

ralmidani 5y ago

Does “flaming liberal” === excusing the CCP’s behavior? At least in the US, the CCP is condemned by most politicians from across the classic liberal-conservative spectrum.

suction 5y ago
"Liberal" in the US policy-wise is extremely conservative in most Western European countries, for example Merkel's party CDU is a "right of center conservative" party in Germany but would be far left in the US. Maybe it's not comparable, coming to think of it, because morals and values are so extremely different in Europe and the US.
- explodingcamera 5y ago
  I don't know why people keep saying this, but there's no way in hell the CDU is far left. The CDU is a historically conservative center to slightly right party, and if they didn't need the votes, the current politicians in charge would go further to the right. A couple of years ago, the CDU lost many voters to the AFD, which is a far right extremist party, and many CDU politicians still sympathize with them, while no other party in Germany collaborates with the AFD. Getting pro gay, trans, and abortion laws through was hell with the CDU in power.
  - reactor4 5y ago
    [...] would be far left in the US.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  The CDU has very similar policies to Democrats. They would be completely within the overton window here.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
No I despise the stifling of human freedom caused by the Chinese government.
labster 5y ago
[flagged]
- sriram_malhar 5y ago
  Nope. It is not a given that liberals "reflexively" do the opposite of Trump. There's a huge shared overlap about a distrust of China. I know that I rejected the lab leak theory because of WHO's press release and articles on foreignpolicy.com, but at that time I didn't know about the conflict of interest.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    And even with the conflict of interest, all the evidence available points to a zooonosis, not a lab leak.
haswell 5y ago
I’m curious how/why being a “flaming liberal” would ever lead to “excusing the CCP’s behavior”?
- ralmidani 5y ago
  It shouldn’t. That’s why I asked the question.
  - haswell 5y ago
    I don’t understand why the question needed to be asked in the first place. There’s no reason to assume such support based on the “flaming liberal” designation, so asking the question can only be interpreted as some form of accusation or implication that such a relationship does exist.
    - ralmidani 5y ago
      From GP’s post: “I’m a flaming liberal but I still thought we should at least pursue the lab leak hypothesis…” I was questioning the relationship between the two parts of that sentence, that’s all.
      - haswell 5y ago
        While the lab leak hypothesis has been politicized, yes, I still see no connection between liberalism and support of the CCP. And again I ask: how does being a liberal and supporting the investigation of the lab leak hypothesis have any connection to supporting CCP behavior? The only possible conclusion I can draw is that you’re implying those liberals who don’t think lab leak should be discussed are somehow implicitly supporting the CCP, but this does not logically follow either.

rvba 5y ago

It is very obvious that "gain of function" research described here is basally manufacturing biological weapons, but supposedly this is done "the good of all humans" what is just another communist party slogan. Where are the vaccines or medicine invented by this facility? I can understand storing and analyzing the viruses. Yet gain of function is basically bioweapon research. How is this even allowed when it breaks bioweapon conventions? Also isnt the famous wet market in Wuhan like 300 yards from the Chinese center for disease and control building? (Not to be confused with other buildings in same town).

forgotmyoldname 5y ago
> but supposedly this is done "the good of all humans" what is just another communist party slogan. Keep in mind research done there was an international effort. Some things being strongly funded and supported mostly be other countries.
- rvba 5y ago
  International effort or not, still a biological weapon. It looks that China was collecting viruses (what makes a lot of sense) + also cooking some biological weapons on the side. They didnt call it "biological weapon production", they called it "gain of function research", but it is still the same thing. USA paid some money to be able to access this data (makes sense, the more data you have, the better) + probably they wanted to spy on the Chinese to see what is happening. Unfortunately they send people such as Daszak, who in my opinion looks like a Chinese double-agent, or someone bribed by China to be their mouth-piece. Still we are moving away from the discussion: this "research" is basically against Biological Research Convention ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention ). And yes, I know that Russia signed the convention but does not abide it - they manufacture lots of biological weapons. But it is another problem.
  - forgotmyoldname 5y ago
    > who in my opinion looks like a Chinese double-agent, or someone bribed by China to be their mouth-piece. Are you an authority on the subject or are you making an unfalsifiable claim?

downrightmike 5y ago

China had to slaughter and dispose of millions of pigs up to november 2019. There were stories of drones being used to infect pig farms through the summer to drive up pork prices. Odds are that this was covered up so much that when it hit the breaking point, people blamed the lab, even though wuhan is down stream from farm lands.

ummonk 5y ago
Are you referring to the outbreak of African swine flu? What does that have to do with coronavirus?
- downrightmike 5y ago
  Realistically they were over taxed and they missed the SARs outbreak. Probably why they are using draconian methods still and welding people into their homes, to make up for their lax action.
- JackFr 5y ago
  Is “African” swine flu acceptable? Or does that gate only swing one way?

ummonk 5y ago

Not just that, but the long history of lab leaks (with e.g. smallpox and SARS) that indicates lab leaks are not an unusual occurrence. I too think the evidence in this particular virus comes down on the side of a natural origin, but the a priori denial of the possibility (and need for investigation) of a lab leak early in the pandemic was really unjustified. In fairness, the right wing demands to sanction (or even attack) China certainly didn't help things.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Lab leaks of known pathogens being studied aren’t unusual.
- chana_masala 5y ago
  Are you meaning it is or is not a frequent occurrence? Because the way you've phrased it here it seems that you agree with the OP but I suspect you meant the opposite.
zpeti 5y ago
What evidence comes down to it being of natural origin? I’m genuinely curious because I haven’t seen much “evidence” of it.
- prestonh 5y ago
  I don't think there's much direct evidence to support natural spillover event other than that much of the initial spread could be localized to a wet market, which may have had vendors selling meat from animals known to carry these types of viruses. That seems like pretty weak evidence, though. Other than that, IMO we should have very high prior weight assigned to the natural origin hypothesis in the Bayesian sense, so even without new direct evidence it's still reasonable to believe that hypothesis to be more likely.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    About 60% of all diseases is the result of spillover, and that's only the part that we can trace. The null hypothesis is that this was a spillover, anything else requires hard evidence, not the other way around. There are numerous recent cases of documented spillover, but there isn't a single documented case of a lab leak leading to a major outbreak. The people that keep pushing that angle are usually not in this for the science but to stoke the fire.

stef25 5y ago

Accusations should be ignored when asking valid scientific questions. Imagine a scientist not being curious about HIV in its early days because of homophobia (it was definitely a thing but the right people ignored it). Maybe the analogy isn't perfect ... I didn't want to open a can of worms but hopefully you get my point :)

VoodooJuJu 5y ago

It is infinitely disturbing that political sides are a factor in determining whether to pursue justice and truth, in this case, the Covid-19 lab leak question.