5 ms·

Mere weeks after Covid-19 arrived on our shores, nearly every media, social media, and scientific establishment were in lockstep denouncing the "fringe", "far-r

Mere weeks after Covid-19 arrived on our shores, nearly every media, social media, and scientific establishment were in lockstep denouncing the "fringe", "far-right" lab leak theory, and suppressing it as best they could (Twitter banned people for posting about it in 2020). Not only was it fringe, it was racist too! Before any real, thorough research had been done, they stated with certainty that it definitely did not come from the lab. How could they know so quickly? Its scary to see how quickly our formerly respected institutions were to suppress a legitimate inquiry, simply because... why? It was associated with Trump? It offended China? Anyone who argues for more social media censorship needs to look long and hard at the lab leak theory and how it was handled. These corporate giants that are supposed to be the arbiters of what constitutes misinformation got it wrong, and they got it spectacularly wrong. They got it wrong to the detriment of people who want to know what really happened, and they got it wrong in favor of America's greatest adversary.

camjohnson26 5y ago
One reason could be because some of the people responsible for researching origins were personally involved in funding gain of function research in these labs. Some scientists privately supported the lab leak theory, but they abruptly changed their minds for unknown reasons. https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/release/comer-scalise-jordan-call-on-scientists-who-privately-supported-lab-leak-theory-to-provide-answers-under-oath/ https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/release/comer-scalis...
- baja_blast 5y ago
  Also you could argue that Virologists also have a conflict of interest, speaking out in support of the lab leak theory would not only jeopardize their ability to continue receiving grants from the NIH, but also could result strict regulations/bans on the majority of their research. So Virologists have a choice: A: State that this virus is natural and be hailed as heroes as funding into your field and research floods in. B: Back the Lab Origin betraying all of their colleagues, become social pariahs and hated in society for being guilty by association for 6+ million deaths. All while you life's work and career all gets thrown down the drain. For a Virologist supporting the lab origin only has downsides.
munk-a 5y ago
> Its scary to see how quickly our formerly respected institutions were to suppress a legitimate inquiry, simply because... why? It was associated with Trump? It offended China? Because it immediately led to an increase in anti-asian hate crimes. That included effecting Chinese-Americans who have literally never been to China and south east asians that were mistaken as Chinese. It is difficult to have a nuanced discussion about lab safety in the public view when there's a big chunk of the political sphere that will use it to rile up their base. It sucks that censorship is the better option but we've learned from 9/11 that people are anything but reasonable - I had wealthy middle eastern neighbors who fled the country within a week of the attacks and, after everything that came from 9/11, it seems like they made the right decision.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  > Because it immediately led to an increase in anti-asian hate crimes. I'm asking the following as seriously and as respectfully as I possibly can, and let it be known that I abhor all crime. Was this anti-Asian hate crime story ever real, or was it a media narrative designed to bash Trump? Just to play Devil's Advocate: what if crime rates in cities where many Asians tend to live are going up in general? How would you be able to distinguish between anti-Asian hate crimes increasing, and crime in general increasing? Is the rate of crimes against Asians going up relative to the rate of crimes against say Latinos or Whites or Blacks? Is the rate of crimes against Asians increasing more or less in say Red regions that might tend to be influenced by Trump's rhetoric versus Blue regions that might be less likely to tend to listen to his rhetoric? Has the media even bothered to ask this question and analyze the data, or were they quick to instantly rush to blame Trump for any Asian that was a victim of a random crime in order to score political points. I don't know myself as it requires a lot more research than I can do right now, but what I can see as factual is that there are probably hundreds of stories about crime going up in the last couple of years for every big city. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/major-crimes-up-38-in-nyc-so-far-this-year-nypd-says/3528311/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/major-crimes-up-38-in-... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/opinion/new-york-rising-crime.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/opinion/new-york-rising-c... https://gothamist.com/news/why-are-shootings-and-murders-rise-nyc https://gothamist.com/news/why-are-shootings-and-murders-ris... Just my 2 cents. The data might not indicate what the media says it does and I would say that we should recheck all of our initial premises about the last 6 years.
manuelabeledo 5y ago
> Not only was it fringe, it was racist too! It wasn't "racist" per se, but it was subsequently used as an ideological weapon. There was a clear consequence of tying COVID-19 with some sort of WMD released by the Chinese, and it was the increase in violence against AAPI folks.
- pageandrew 5y ago
  > There was a clear consequence of tying COVID-19 with some sort of WMD released by the Chinese and it was the increase in violence against AAPI folks. Nobody said WMD. Most likely culprit is irresponsibly risky experimentation combined with documented poor lab safety practices. That said, even if there was a direct link between theories about Covid-19 origins and a rise in hate crimes, does that mean that those theories shouldn't be discussed? If the search for truth leads to unintended and unfortunate side effects, does that mean that the search for truth should be abandoned in favor of burying our heads in the sand? Or worse, adopting an alternate reality that is more harmful to us, like maybe the Chinese Communist Party "theory" that Covid came from a US Army lab.
  - acdha 5y ago
    > Nobody said WMD. This was in fact a not uncommon claim. It wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the backlash if concerns about an accidental leak been expressed as questions rather than with certainty, by people who weren’t also making racist statements or otherwise acting in bad faith about the pandemic (you could easily find Republicans saying it was both mostly harmless and a Chinese attack just sentences apart).
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    > If the search for truth leads to unintended and unfortunate side effects, does that mean that the search for truth should be abandoned in favor of burying our heads in the sand? I think this is a take as naive as it can be. Not only can we read about this lab leak hypothesis across all media outlets, there is an ongoing debate about its validity in most respectable ones. Debates should include opposing opinions, I presume? There are also plenty of historical examples of why public opinion driven by media outlets does not qualify as the “search of truth”. Reporting itself has mostly nothing to do with that, either. This hypothesis and many others could be true or false, but the vast majority of the population is simply not able to reach an informed conclusion, even more if we take into account that not even experts have enough information to do so. Thus, one shouldn’t believe otherwise, while ignoring the fact that it is already being used to push public opinion in a certain direction.
jcims 5y ago
Alex Jones’ counter-influential powers on one ’side’ appear to be substantially greater than his influential pull on the other.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
It was denounced because at the time there wasn't any evidence, mostly racism (see: "kung flu"); the accusation was rooted solely in a desire to rile up the president's base. It generated substantial harassment and violence against anyone who even appeared to be of Chinese descent, another reason it was denounced; not because of some vast media conspiracy.
- pageandrew 5y ago
  > It was denounced because at the time there wasn't any evidence There was, and is, no evidence of the theory that it originated from a zoonotic leap at a wet market, which is arguably more racist because it places Chinese culinary practices in the spotlight instead of risky science experiments. It was denounced because the scientists (like Peter Daszak) who were cited by the media in stifling the theory were the same scientists who were backing the risky research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that likely lead to the lab leak. There was a clear conflict of interest that was undisclosed to the public.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
They were doing exactly what they should to tamp down crazy far right wing propaganda that was aimed at incentivizing the public towards violence against asians. If you had evidence of a lab leak then present it and then you can promote a theory that is likely to result in violence towards individuals otherwise please keep it to yourself until you have proof.
- pageandrew 5y ago
  > They were doing exactly what they should to tamp down crazy far right wing propaganda that was aimed at incentivizing the public towards violence against asians. What you've just said is baseless. Nobody "aimed" this theory. The theory simply came into being because it is plausible, probable, and just made sense if you looked at the facts of the situation objectively. The lab leak theory was plausible from Day One, and anyone who said otherwise was motivated by ideology or fear. > If you had evidence of a lab leak then present it and then you can promote a theory that is likely to result in violence towards individuals otherwise please keep it to yourself until you have proof There is more evidence of a lab leak than there is of a zoonotic jump (none).
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    I'm sorry but it is quite naive not to see the Republican elite have used the covid issue (like so many others) to frighten their followers into believing the astroturfing on facebook, twitter, reddit, etc to convince people that covid is many things: a hoax, a progressive attempt to get us to take vaccines that will sterilize us, an attack from China, and on and on. The party that produced Q anon from a prank on 4/8chan isn't appealing to the fear portions of the brain? They're doing this to sell their policies which are meant to enrich the elite (0.1%)? I think you should take a step back and look at the big picture of what Republican leaders are up to. It's certainly not for the benefit of the masses.

camjohnson26 5y ago

One reason could be because some of the people responsible for researching origins were personally involved in funding gain of function research in these labs. Some scientists privately supported the lab leak theory, but they abruptly changed their minds for unknown reasons. https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/release/comer-scalise-jordan-call-on-scientists-who-privately-supported-lab-leak-theory-to-provide-answers-under-oath/ https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/release/comer-scalis...

baja_blast 5y ago
Also you could argue that Virologists also have a conflict of interest, speaking out in support of the lab leak theory would not only jeopardize their ability to continue receiving grants from the NIH, but also could result strict regulations/bans on the majority of their research. So Virologists have a choice: A: State that this virus is natural and be hailed as heroes as funding into your field and research floods in. B: Back the Lab Origin betraying all of their colleagues, become social pariahs and hated in society for being guilty by association for 6+ million deaths. All while you life's work and career all gets thrown down the drain. For a Virologist supporting the lab origin only has downsides.

munk-a 5y ago

> Its scary to see how quickly our formerly respected institutions were to suppress a legitimate inquiry, simply because... why? It was associated with Trump? It offended China? Because it immediately led to an increase in anti-asian hate crimes. That included effecting Chinese-Americans who have literally never been to China and south east asians that were mistaken as Chinese. It is difficult to have a nuanced discussion about lab safety in the public view when there's a big chunk of the political sphere that will use it to rile up their base. It sucks that censorship is the better option but we've learned from 9/11 that people are anything but reasonable - I had wealthy middle eastern neighbors who fled the country within a week of the attacks and, after everything that came from 9/11, it seems like they made the right decision.

logicalmonster 5y ago
> Because it immediately led to an increase in anti-asian hate crimes. I'm asking the following as seriously and as respectfully as I possibly can, and let it be known that I abhor all crime. Was this anti-Asian hate crime story ever real, or was it a media narrative designed to bash Trump? Just to play Devil's Advocate: what if crime rates in cities where many Asians tend to live are going up in general? How would you be able to distinguish between anti-Asian hate crimes increasing, and crime in general increasing? Is the rate of crimes against Asians going up relative to the rate of crimes against say Latinos or Whites or Blacks? Is the rate of crimes against Asians increasing more or less in say Red regions that might tend to be influenced by Trump's rhetoric versus Blue regions that might be less likely to tend to listen to his rhetoric? Has the media even bothered to ask this question and analyze the data, or were they quick to instantly rush to blame Trump for any Asian that was a victim of a random crime in order to score political points. I don't know myself as it requires a lot more research than I can do right now, but what I can see as factual is that there are probably hundreds of stories about crime going up in the last couple of years for every big city. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/major-crimes-up-38-in-nyc-so-far-this-year-nypd-says/3528311/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/major-crimes-up-38-in-... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/opinion/new-york-rising-crime.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/opinion/new-york-rising-c... https://gothamist.com/news/why-are-shootings-and-murders-rise-nyc https://gothamist.com/news/why-are-shootings-and-murders-ris... Just my 2 cents. The data might not indicate what the media says it does and I would say that we should recheck all of our initial premises about the last 6 years.

manuelabeledo 5y ago

> Not only was it fringe, it was racist too! It wasn't "racist" per se, but it was subsequently used as an ideological weapon. There was a clear consequence of tying COVID-19 with some sort of WMD released by the Chinese, and it was the increase in violence against AAPI folks.

pageandrew 5y ago
> There was a clear consequence of tying COVID-19 with some sort of WMD released by the Chinese and it was the increase in violence against AAPI folks. Nobody said WMD. Most likely culprit is irresponsibly risky experimentation combined with documented poor lab safety practices. That said, even if there was a direct link between theories about Covid-19 origins and a rise in hate crimes, does that mean that those theories shouldn't be discussed? If the search for truth leads to unintended and unfortunate side effects, does that mean that the search for truth should be abandoned in favor of burying our heads in the sand? Or worse, adopting an alternate reality that is more harmful to us, like maybe the Chinese Communist Party "theory" that Covid came from a US Army lab.
- acdha 5y ago
  > Nobody said WMD. This was in fact a not uncommon claim. It wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the backlash if concerns about an accidental leak been expressed as questions rather than with certainty, by people who weren’t also making racist statements or otherwise acting in bad faith about the pandemic (you could easily find Republicans saying it was both mostly harmless and a Chinese attack just sentences apart).
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  > If the search for truth leads to unintended and unfortunate side effects, does that mean that the search for truth should be abandoned in favor of burying our heads in the sand? I think this is a take as naive as it can be. Not only can we read about this lab leak hypothesis across all media outlets, there is an ongoing debate about its validity in most respectable ones. Debates should include opposing opinions, I presume? There are also plenty of historical examples of why public opinion driven by media outlets does not qualify as the “search of truth”. Reporting itself has mostly nothing to do with that, either. This hypothesis and many others could be true or false, but the vast majority of the population is simply not able to reach an informed conclusion, even more if we take into account that not even experts have enough information to do so. Thus, one shouldn’t believe otherwise, while ignoring the fact that it is already being used to push public opinion in a certain direction.

jcims 5y ago

Alex Jones’ counter-influential powers on one ’side’ appear to be substantially greater than his influential pull on the other.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

It was denounced because at the time there wasn't any evidence, mostly racism (see: "kung flu"); the accusation was rooted solely in a desire to rile up the president's base. It generated substantial harassment and violence against anyone who even appeared to be of Chinese descent, another reason it was denounced; not because of some vast media conspiracy.

pageandrew 5y ago
> It was denounced because at the time there wasn't any evidence There was, and is, no evidence of the theory that it originated from a zoonotic leap at a wet market, which is arguably more racist because it places Chinese culinary practices in the spotlight instead of risky science experiments. It was denounced because the scientists (like Peter Daszak) who were cited by the media in stifling the theory were the same scientists who were backing the risky research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that likely lead to the lab leak. There was a clear conflict of interest that was undisclosed to the public.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

They were doing exactly what they should to tamp down crazy far right wing propaganda that was aimed at incentivizing the public towards violence against asians. If you had evidence of a lab leak then present it and then you can promote a theory that is likely to result in violence towards individuals otherwise please keep it to yourself until you have proof.

pageandrew 5y ago
> They were doing exactly what they should to tamp down crazy far right wing propaganda that was aimed at incentivizing the public towards violence against asians. What you've just said is baseless. Nobody "aimed" this theory. The theory simply came into being because it is plausible, probable, and just made sense if you looked at the facts of the situation objectively. The lab leak theory was plausible from Day One, and anyone who said otherwise was motivated by ideology or fear. > If you had evidence of a lab leak then present it and then you can promote a theory that is likely to result in violence towards individuals otherwise please keep it to yourself until you have proof There is more evidence of a lab leak than there is of a zoonotic jump (none).
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I'm sorry but it is quite naive not to see the Republican elite have used the covid issue (like so many others) to frighten their followers into believing the astroturfing on facebook, twitter, reddit, etc to convince people that covid is many things: a hoax, a progressive attempt to get us to take vaccines that will sterilize us, an attack from China, and on and on. The party that produced Q anon from a prank on 4/8chan isn't appealing to the fear portions of the brain? They're doing this to sell their policies which are meant to enrich the elite (0.1%)? I think you should take a step back and look at the big picture of what Republican leaders are up to. It's certainly not for the benefit of the masses.