3 ms·

> The “anti lab leak” position has always That is absolutely not true. Don't you dare try to rewrite history. The anti-lab-leak position has included claims l

> The “anti lab leak” position has always That is absolutely not true. Don't you dare try to rewrite history. The anti-lab-leak position has included claims like "it's racist to say that china lab leaked the virus". At best, the "official" anti lab leak position has been framed by the lancet article. Go read that and tell us if that position is as neutral as you claim.

ethanbond 5y ago
Yeah this is another view I see commonly expressed and have found no evidence ever coming from an authority. The Lancet letter (effectively an op-ed), for example, mentions race exactly zero times. It does somewhat recklessly affiliate these theories with conspiracy theories, but it’s worth remembering that they were responding to actual conspiracy theories like the virus being a bioweapon purposely released. This is an actual theory of conspiracy for which there continues to be no evidence. Scientists were getting death threats on this basis. And again, the Lancet letter itself points to the then-current body of evidence, which people can contribute to or refute via their own publications (this is how science works).
- spfzero 5y ago
  They weren't responding to any body of evidence. There was zero at that time, on either side. They were trying to get out in front and head off what they thought was something reasonable people would include in their consideration of origins. They had no evidence either way but knew that they had a lot to lose, and fired everything they had.
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    The letter didn’t blame racism, the letter cited several genomic analyses that actually had already been conducted by that point, and to my knowledge that letter didn’t disrupt any research into the virus’s origins. Open to seeing evidence otherwise though.
- dnautics 5y ago
  You're twisting my words and deflecting from my point. To clarify: The letter did not call it racism, other people did. This is verifiable in many places.
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    And we’re to take some commentators (Twitter users? TV personalities maybe?) calling it racist as evidence of what would certainly be the largest scientific suppression campaign ever conducted? People are discussing this hypothesis nonstop.
ajross 5y ago
The Lancet article was opinionated. It may have been wrong. I still don't see how that constitutes suppression or cancellation or censorship (and certainly not an accusation of racism). There were people within the scientific community who disagreed (Chan is one). There just weren't many of them. Holding an opinion contrary to an expert consensus isn't a state of persecution.
- spfzero 5y ago
  The Lancet letter came about to imply there was an expert consensus, when there was not yet one. It was driven by the exact people who would know best that a lab origin was plausible, saying loudly that it was not.
  - ajross 5y ago
    That's not suppression, though. It's just disagreement. I understand that you personally believe that the Lancet authors were acting in bad faith. But you surely agree they had the right to author that letter, right? You just... disagree. That's the way things are supposed to work. Maybe science is wrong sometimes, and people argue. And eventually we come to consensus. I have to say: it sounds like you're the one on the pro-suppression side here (arguing that the Lancet shouldn't have published that letter). Am I wrong?
    - spfzero 5y ago
      I don't blame the Lancet for publishing it. They had no way of knowing it was not what it seemed. They should have maybe looked for the conflicts of interest a bit harder, and it is to their credit that they encouraged Daszak to write a correction later. Everyone should be heard. Unfortunately the intent of that original letter was to pre-bias against opposing viewpoints, before they got to be heard.
      - ajross 5y ago
        > the intent of that original letter was to pre-bias against opposing viewpoints Isn't that the same thing as saying the intent was "persuade" the reader? How is it different except in the sense that they managed to persuade people to believe something with which you disagreed?

ethanbond 5y ago

Yeah this is another view I see commonly expressed and have found no evidence ever coming from an authority. The Lancet letter (effectively an op-ed), for example, mentions race exactly zero times. It does somewhat recklessly affiliate these theories with conspiracy theories, but it’s worth remembering that they were responding to actual conspiracy theories like the virus being a bioweapon purposely released. This is an actual theory of conspiracy for which there continues to be no evidence. Scientists were getting death threats on this basis. And again, the Lancet letter itself points to the then-current body of evidence, which people can contribute to or refute via their own publications (this is how science works).

spfzero 5y ago
They weren't responding to any body of evidence. There was zero at that time, on either side. They were trying to get out in front and head off what they thought was something reasonable people would include in their consideration of origins. They had no evidence either way but knew that they had a lot to lose, and fired everything they had.
- ethanbond 5y ago
  The letter didn’t blame racism, the letter cited several genomic analyses that actually had already been conducted by that point, and to my knowledge that letter didn’t disrupt any research into the virus’s origins. Open to seeing evidence otherwise though.
dnautics 5y ago
You're twisting my words and deflecting from my point. To clarify: The letter did not call it racism, other people did. This is verifiable in many places.
- ethanbond 5y ago
  And we’re to take some commentators (Twitter users? TV personalities maybe?) calling it racist as evidence of what would certainly be the largest scientific suppression campaign ever conducted? People are discussing this hypothesis nonstop.

ajross 5y ago

The Lancet article was opinionated. It may have been wrong. I still don't see how that constitutes suppression or cancellation or censorship (and certainly not an accusation of racism). There were people within the scientific community who disagreed (Chan is one). There just weren't many of them. Holding an opinion contrary to an expert consensus isn't a state of persecution.

spfzero 5y ago
The Lancet letter came about to imply there was an expert consensus, when there was not yet one. It was driven by the exact people who would know best that a lab origin was plausible, saying loudly that it was not.
- ajross 5y ago
  That's not suppression, though. It's just disagreement. I understand that you personally believe that the Lancet authors were acting in bad faith. But you surely agree they had the right to author that letter, right? You just... disagree. That's the way things are supposed to work. Maybe science is wrong sometimes, and people argue. And eventually we come to consensus. I have to say: it sounds like you're the one on the pro-suppression side here (arguing that the Lancet shouldn't have published that letter). Am I wrong?
  - spfzero 5y ago
    I don't blame the Lancet for publishing it. They had no way of knowing it was not what it seemed. They should have maybe looked for the conflicts of interest a bit harder, and it is to their credit that they encouraged Daszak to write a correction later. Everyone should be heard. Unfortunately the intent of that original letter was to pre-bias against opposing viewpoints, before they got to be heard.
    - ajross 5y ago
      > the intent of that original letter was to pre-bias against opposing viewpoints Isn't that the same thing as saying the intent was "persuade" the reader? How is it different except in the sense that they managed to persuade people to believe something with which you disagreed?