6 ms·

OP isn't asserting an answer to any of those questions, OP is asking for an answer at all. All of those associations and events are tied into the lab leak hypot

OP isn't asserting an answer to any of those questions, OP is asking for an answer at all. All of those associations and events are tied into the lab leak hypothesis. So, if you are going to make any hypothesis on the lab leak, those are events that need to be addressed. OP is asking that you look at all the evidence, or you are not arguing in good faith. I don't see how it's ironic.

thedorkknight 4y ago
The problem is that they're not evidence for a lab leak. They're evidence for Peter Daszak being a shady person who was scared of the thought of a lab leak being linked to him regardless of whether or not it's true, and handled it in the worst way possible.
- waynesonfire 4y ago
  Lets have the data and facts speak for what Peter Daszaks motivase are.
- yonaguska 4y ago
  If that's true, it needs to be addressed. If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses. Instead, he hides and deflects. Unfortunately, it's become a right vs left issue, so he has an entire political establishment deflecting for him on his behalf. It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.
  - slg 4y ago
    >It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion. Which is why the presumption of innocence is central to most modern judicial systems and is widely recognized as a human right. Why should we throw out that principal in this specific instance?
    - thedorkknight 4y ago
      Also, Hanson's Razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor Basically, its entirely possible that Daszak is covering up a lab leak. Its also entirely possible he's an arrogant asshole who got scared of the implication that there was a lab leak.
  - thedorkknight 4y ago
    >If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses Disagree, since you can't really prove a negative. I'm not sure what evidence could "exonerate" him in a way that would remove everyone's suspicion. Besides, I listened to the podcast "This Week in Virology" A lot during covid, and they talked about Daszak multiple times, especially since some of the hosts have professional connections with him. Prof. Racaniello, the main host, has even interviewed him, pre-pandemic. Unfortunately, all of their discussion around the lab leak hypothesis would just get disregarded by people since it didn't fit the conspiracy narrative, and they just got written off as "anti-Trump" as a result. Literally, one of their march 2020 episodes where they'd usually answer listener questions, as they'd been doing for nearly a decade, was just them being baffled by suddenly getting hate mail accusing them of being "political" and "anti-Trump". That's also when I realized personally that we were screwed but I digress. >It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion. Totally agreed, and I get it. This is why learning about cognitive biases and structured critical thinking was so eye-opening to me and why I think we should be teaching these things in school as early as possible.

thedorkknight 4y ago

The problem is that they're not evidence for a lab leak. They're evidence for Peter Daszak being a shady person who was scared of the thought of a lab leak being linked to him regardless of whether or not it's true, and handled it in the worst way possible.

waynesonfire 4y ago
Lets have the data and facts speak for what Peter Daszaks motivase are.
yonaguska 4y ago
If that's true, it needs to be addressed. If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses. Instead, he hides and deflects. Unfortunately, it's become a right vs left issue, so he has an entire political establishment deflecting for him on his behalf. It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.
- slg 4y ago
  >It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion. Which is why the presumption of innocence is central to most modern judicial systems and is widely recognized as a human right. Why should we throw out that principal in this specific instance?
  - thedorkknight 4y ago
    Also, Hanson's Razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor Basically, its entirely possible that Daszak is covering up a lab leak. Its also entirely possible he's an arrogant asshole who got scared of the implication that there was a lab leak.
- thedorkknight 4y ago
  >If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses Disagree, since you can't really prove a negative. I'm not sure what evidence could "exonerate" him in a way that would remove everyone's suspicion. Besides, I listened to the podcast "This Week in Virology" A lot during covid, and they talked about Daszak multiple times, especially since some of the hosts have professional connections with him. Prof. Racaniello, the main host, has even interviewed him, pre-pandemic. Unfortunately, all of their discussion around the lab leak hypothesis would just get disregarded by people since it didn't fit the conspiracy narrative, and they just got written off as "anti-Trump" as a result. Literally, one of their march 2020 episodes where they'd usually answer listener questions, as they'd been doing for nearly a decade, was just them being baffled by suddenly getting hate mail accusing them of being "political" and "anti-Trump". That's also when I realized personally that we were screwed but I digress. >It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion. Totally agreed, and I get it. This is why learning about cognitive biases and structured critical thinking was so eye-opening to me and why I think we should be teaching these things in school as early as possible.