4 ms·

I’m reading this as sarcasm, am I wrong? If so, it is such a bad faith response. It is well reported that China was highly uncooperative in providing records

• lamontcg 3y ago
  No its quite serious. China covered up the existence of susceptible animals at the market. If you want to take the actions of a cover up as being proof, then you have to look at that cover up as well. What people do instead, though, is pick and choose -- the actions surrounding the lab are evidence China is hiding a lab leak, while the actions surrounding the market are not evidence China is trying to hide a zoonotic spillover. There's nothing "bad faith" about that at all, unless you're so bought into the lab leak theory that any question of it is bad faith.
  • shwaj 3y ago
    Do you have a link showing that China suppressed evidence of the presence of raccoon dogs? I just looked and couldn’t find, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It’s a fair point that if suppression of evidence is to be considered an indication of guilt, it has to work both ways. Edit: typo