4 ms·
Did you really post this in good faith? Come on. The impression from your comment is that the lab leak proponents are all doing good science, but are being att
by llm_nerd 3y ago
Did you really post this in good faith? Come on.
The impression from your comment is that the lab leak proponents are all doing good science, but are being attacked by the zoonosis proponents who all lie and manipulate data.
That you then give some cherry picked selections and demand that everyone Do Your Own Research is not a convincing argument. It is, in fact, the go to for crackpots everywhere.
I have zero bias for either outcome. It isn't my field or expertise. It should continue to be studied in depth so we can prepare for the future, and clearly there are very smart, very capable people arguing sincerely for both positions, as is often the case when there is a lack of data to more conclusively prove anything.
At the same time, people should realize that the "lab leak" theory got suppressed not because by itself there was anything evil with it -- labs do have accidents -- but that it was proximal with bad people and bad arguments and got tainted by association. e.g. The Assholes of society were almost universally proponents of the lab leak theory because it's pat, fits in loads of conspiracies and racist overtones, and lets you stomp your feet in anger. Those people basically tarnished the position.
- stringsandchars 3y ago> Did you really post this in good faith? Come on. I'm not sure how to respond. I want people to look at posts like this one[1], that actually reference solidly researched studies like those done by Bloom Labs, instead of the manipulated and cherry-picked data used by Worobey and others who support the wet-market scenario (at least in public). There are a lot of crackpots out there, and I try to ignore their anti-vax nonsense. But just because it's convenient for them to align themselves with what they seem to think is some sort of anti-China hypothesis, it's no reason for me to discount the clear and growing evidence that a lab accident infected workers, and spread from there, wherever it might have been in the world. [1] https://nitter.net/ydeigin/status/1695588327540347329 https://nitter.net/ydeigin/status/1695588327540347329
- llm_nerd 3y agoThe current state of the debate is that there are credible, lauded experts arguing both positions. If it was a straw-vote among the most respected figures in the field, it it would still lean towards a zoonic origin, I suspect. But almost all of them believe the data is incomplete. I questioned the faith of the post because your post implies pretty clearly that there is all of the evidence on one side, and all of the charlatans, liars and fake data is on the other. That seems...unlikely. But you see it because you chose a position and everything then fits that position. Eh.
- baja_blast 3y ago>lauded experts Almost all of the researchers throwing ad hominems at scientists who support a lab origin are NOT that lauded. Most had very low H-index scores prior to the pandemic. Especially Angela Rasmussen from the University of Saskatchewan.
- gadders 3y ago>>At the same time, people should realize that the "lab leak" theory got suppressed not because by itself there was anything evil with it -- labs do have accidents -- but that it was proximal with bad people and bad arguments and got tainted by association Must be nice to have one of those jobs where you get to decide whether to indulge in the "Noble Lie" or not, just in case all the rest of society (which is obviously never as smart as you or your friends) draws different conclusions. The fact that you even think it's borderline acceptable for the lab leak theory to be suppressed just because of who was in charge at the time is disgusting.