4 ms·
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 la
by 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 agoThat'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 agoI 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?