3 ms·

I respect this position on principal, but I also forget like we are equally glossing over the context in this specific case. In 2020, the lab-leak theory was s

I respect this position on principal, but I also forget like we are equally glossing over the context in this specific case. In 2020, the lab-leak theory was specifically being promoted by people who were advancing the idea that Covid was a) an engineered bio-weapon b) required a national security response in lieu of a medical one. But if we really want to look back at 2020-2021, there were MUCH more egregious examples of "experts" wielding their credentials maliciously. School closures I think will be the most pertinent example for a while to come.

RyanAdamas 3y ago
Incorrect, the lab-leak theory was specifically disregarded using the well-poisoning methods you described as the blame would be shifted to a wild-goose chase. Considering China went through SARS 10 years previous with hundreds of millions of patients to examine, combined with the influx of viral research into the country after that period, it is by no means a stretch to assume duplicity was at hand. A for-profit medical response is a conflation of the kind you are suggesting should have taken place.
- legitster 3y ago
  At the end of the day, no one really should have cared that much where Covid came from in 2020. The only people who really cared were people who were trying to win a game of political football. This is equally true with the scientists in the Lancet letter as it was with politicians trying to win a pissing match with China.
pgrote 3y ago
Sort of tossing the baby out with the bath water. If anyone posited alternate origins except what was the accepted leading thought of the time, they were ostracized across many segments of society. It became one of the things you couldn't discuss publicly. Many topics became like this during covid including your mention of school closures. Weird time.
ctrlp 3y ago
Both those ideas (a,b) are look to be vindicated. It does look like an engineered bio-weapon and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that conclusion. And whether the people pointing to a lab leak were also demanding a national security response or opposing one, that is what happened, i.e., it was a national security response (big pharma white labeling and providing distribution for DoD subcontractors product). Simple as.

RyanAdamas 3y ago

Incorrect, the lab-leak theory was specifically disregarded using the well-poisoning methods you described as the blame would be shifted to a wild-goose chase. Considering China went through SARS 10 years previous with hundreds of millions of patients to examine, combined with the influx of viral research into the country after that period, it is by no means a stretch to assume duplicity was at hand. A for-profit medical response is a conflation of the kind you are suggesting should have taken place.

legitster 3y ago
At the end of the day, no one really should have cared that much where Covid came from in 2020. The only people who really cared were people who were trying to win a game of political football. This is equally true with the scientists in the Lancet letter as it was with politicians trying to win a pissing match with China.

pgrote 3y ago

Sort of tossing the baby out with the bath water. If anyone posited alternate origins except what was the accepted leading thought of the time, they were ostracized across many segments of society. It became one of the things you couldn't discuss publicly. Many topics became like this during covid including your mention of school closures. Weird time.

ctrlp 3y ago

Both those ideas (a,b) are look to be vindicated. It does look like an engineered bio-weapon and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that conclusion. And whether the people pointing to a lab leak were also demanding a national security response or opposing one, that is what happened, i.e., it was a national security response (big pharma white labeling and providing distribution for DoD subcontractors product). Simple as.