3 ms·

Did I read something different? What I saw was a group literally conspiring to mold the narrative so that people wouldn't have fuel for conspiracy theories. Mor

Did I read something different? What I saw was a group literally conspiring to mold the narrative so that people wouldn't have fuel for conspiracy theories. More irony than the Eiffel Tower. This isn't to say I think it's me way or the other stuff like this is why people are losing faith in our public institutions. And just because something is in a paper does not really mean it's true, the sausage grinder that produces scientific literature doesn't really have safeguards that check for truth or accuracy, rather they check for things being novel, interesting, and covering the existing literature.

rhaway84773 3y ago
Literally none of this is correct. The article headline is also false. The scientists are all saying that the lab leak is a possibility. About the most “suspicious” thing being said is that if it is a lab leak they will need irrefutable evidence, but they simultaneously claim that it’s entirely explainable by natural causes as well. One scientist is unsure about the natural explanation because of the distance of the believed origin of the virus. Of course, later information has completely explained this, but even then a scientist responds by saying that it’s absolutely possible by natural causes as well. Pretty much the most controversial thing here is that some scientists might have been personally slightly leaning towards a lab leak theory but had absolutely no evidence for it. Just that the “coincidences” seemed quite too many. In Feb/Mar 2020 when we had very little information (for example, at this point, scientists outside China didn’t even know that asymptomatic spread was possible with COVID-19, which in itself changes the equation completely). I would challenge someone to actually copy a controversial quote from what the scientists actually said. Unfortunately this article is doing a massive disservice by presenting exploratory thoughts as some sort of cover up.

rhaway84773 3y ago

Literally none of this is correct. The article headline is also false. The scientists are all saying that the lab leak is a possibility. About the most “suspicious” thing being said is that if it is a lab leak they will need irrefutable evidence, but they simultaneously claim that it’s entirely explainable by natural causes as well. One scientist is unsure about the natural explanation because of the distance of the believed origin of the virus. Of course, later information has completely explained this, but even then a scientist responds by saying that it’s absolutely possible by natural causes as well. Pretty much the most controversial thing here is that some scientists might have been personally slightly leaning towards a lab leak theory but had absolutely no evidence for it. Just that the “coincidences” seemed quite too many. In Feb/Mar 2020 when we had very little information (for example, at this point, scientists outside China didn’t even know that asymptomatic spread was possible with COVID-19, which in itself changes the equation completely). I would challenge someone to actually copy a controversial quote from what the scientists actually said. Unfortunately this article is doing a massive disservice by presenting exploratory thoughts as some sort of cover up.