4 ms·
There has been little or no new physical evidence. We have seen new evidence of coverup, though, where scientists privately said there was high likelihood of la
by toomim 3y ago
There has been little or no new physical evidence. We have seen new evidence of coverup, though, where scientists privately said there was high likelihood of lab leak in slack messages before publicly signing publications claiming there was no likelihood of lab leak. The leaked slack messages are damning.
- wredue 3y agoThat’s a complete mischaracterization of that situation. The conversation DID ask if it was a leak. Then they studied the evidence and only after studying the evidence did they publicly sign that it was probably of natural origin.
- toomim 3y agoThat's not true at all. They had already studied the evidence on February 2 when they had the slack conversations. No new evidence appeared. Then they said out loud that they were changing the paper's conclusions away from their actual beliefs because of the political consequences: > “Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possible distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to with ascribing it to natural processes.” > “Yup, I totally agree that’s a very reasonable conclusion,” Andersen responded. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance. We should be sensitive to that.” https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-leak/ https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-lea...