9 ms·

Here is a quote from the COVID-19 lab leak theory article[1] as an example of how Wikipedia's NPOV policy is implemented. I'll let it speak for itself. "The la

Here is a quote from the COVID-19 lab leak theory article[1] as an example of how Wikipedia's NPOV policy is implemented. I'll let it speak for itself. "The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents, and has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment. [...] While the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear than any can can be sufficiently falsified to placate lab leak supporters, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory

lucubratory 3y ago
That's a really good way to handle it. I don't know where the brain worms are from exactly, but I've seen people who don't otherwise have rocks for brains going full-on "All the scientists are wrong, I'm just asking questions, leaked from a Chinese lab!" about this specific conspiracy theory. I get there's a nationalism aspect, but that's no excuse to throw your brain out the window. Edit: It is weird that on a pretty technical forum there are a bunch of people here who don't know anything about virology disagreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus in the field, based on overtly conspiratorial thinking (e.g. "Look at the connections, this can't be a coincidence, this man leaked the truth and they silenced him" etc etc). You don't get to scientific consensus on something through a conspiracy. I wonder what the people replying with conspiracy theories think about climate change.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  > That's a really good way to handle it. Oh you were serious? Yea I guess I don’t get where anyone would get all that nonsense from. It’s nothing more than a coincidence that the first people that got sick worked in and around China’s only level4 bio lab, that the NIH was confirmed to 1-degree indirectly funding gain of function research on sars coronaviruses… then after the virus was out the Chinese government came in to prevent access to that facility and it’s data. I mean… how racist do you have to be to give any credit to the conspiracy theory that it didn’t come from a wet market near that lab?
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  Here we go again... Covid was an extreme case of "this is the only truth, everyone else has rocks for brains", and then the truth changing overnight. Masks don't help, you don't need them, just wash your hands, to you must wear a mask, vaccinated people don't get sick, don't spread the virus, to whoops, heart issues are just a conspiracy thory, to countries stopping use of specific vaccines due to heart issues. Don't be like that, accept that other theories are possible, and that we don't know the whole truth yet.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    This is a revisionist interpretation of history. The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first. And in regards to the behavior of the virus, recommendations were always based on the best understanding of the virus at the time and were updated as those understandings changed. Public health guidance isn't "the science", it is a snapshot of professional interpretation of science at a single point in time.
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      We're not talking about scientific process, which changes with new evidence, we're talking about calling people as "heads filled with rocks" for suggesting that the current recommendations are bad/wrong/inapropriate/...., censoring them from social networks, calling them covid deniers, conspiracy theorists, having their wikipedia edits removed, doxing them, and in some cases, even doing stuff that affects their livelyhood, possible medical licences etc., then having the 'truth' change, not acknowledge that 'we' were wrong, and 'they' were right and apologizing, but again, doing all those things to the next group (eg. the ones who bought and wore masks in the time when it was "enough to just wash your hands" were "attacked" first, then the "attack" moved over to the ones who didn't want to wear a mask). If someone (from the government, national 'cdc', whoever) stood up infront of the cameras, said "we fucked up, masks are really needed, we thought so otherwise and gave bad advice, we're sorry, please wear masks", then sure... some will get mad, because their relatives died by following the advice, but for most, it would be a decent thing done by their governments... but banning people who suggested that we need masks, and then banning people who suggested that we didn't need masks without unbanning the first group, is, well... stupid. > The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first. Oh yeah, just a thing I'd like to see with people in power, scientists in doctors... "we lied to you, because we couldn't fill out order forms in time, you could have died by following our advice, but here's new advice, we're totally not lying now, whoopsie, sorry!" (but without the 'sorry'). How am I supposed to trust them now, when they recommend something else?
- kbutler 3y ago
  https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wr... """ The mainstream media downplayed—and even denied—the scientific theory that COVID-19 emerged from the WIV. Nicholas Wade testified about the campaign to discredit the lab leak theory. He pointed out that scientists kept in line with the natural origin camp led by Drs. Fauci and Collins because of their dependence on government grants and that the media failed to challenge the forced narrative. All witnesses agreed that the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab is not a conspiracy theory. """
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    Also don't forget Fauci payed WIV to study bat coronaviruses. But since no document exists saying his money went directly to developing this particular coronavirus, we are supposed to take this as a nothing-burger. > In 2014, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the part of the NIH headed by Fauci, awarded a $3.4 million grant to the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, which aims to protect people from viruses that jump from species to species. > The group hired the virology lab in Wuhan to conduct genetic analyses of bat coronaviruses collected in Yunnan province, about 800 miles southwest of Wuhan. EcoHealth Alliance paid the lab $598,500 over five years. The lab had secured approval from both the U.S. State Department and the NIH. > That the NIAID funded the project is not in question. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/02/09/covid-dr-anthony-fauci-did-not-fund-research-tied-creation/4450338001/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  What specific evidence lends credence to the “overwhelming scientific consensus” you claim? There’s still no known natural precursor and the only thing we see with a similar Furin cleavage site (which greatly enhanced the virality) doesn’t look like the backbone of the virus. The only US intelligence agency which assessed the situation with moderate confidence was the one who concluded that it was a lab leak. The natural origin conclusion only received low confidence. Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. You seem to be ignoring the actual scientific data, the work of intelligence agencies, and the documented human aspects which impacted this. But yeah, keep throwing that abuse out there to shame others because they don’t recite the headlines as good as you. Edit: People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. Are they self-aware enough to realize they were fishing for a pretense to ignore you?
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    >Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. Are you self-aware enough to know that this paragraph gives the game away that your whole comment is conspiratorial nonsense, or does it feel normal to you to theorise that some US public health official who got caught up in partisan US politics is personally intimidating scientists into agreeing with scientific consensus, and rewarding them with grants for doing so?
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      Scientists have been caught red handed lying about lab leak https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical-of https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical...
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    The PRRAR furin cleavage sequence wasn't a previously known furin cleavage pattern and its unlikely that human scientists would have tried to insert that particular pattern into the genome of a virus. We also now know of natural viruses which are very close to SARS-CoV-2 and only missing the FCS, but at the same time there has been zero evidence that WIV was ever working with SARS-CoV-2-like viruses when their focus was on SARS-CoV-1 like viruses. And the natural spillover event is the leading theory in the intelligence community, from the ODNI report: > The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. > The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons. > The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting. > Almost all IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Most agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not laboratory-adapted; some are unable to make a determination. All IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon. The natural spillover theory is the leading theory 5-to-3 compared to other theories and only DoE and the FBI think that the lab leak was more likely. Genetic engineering is not a well-supported theory. And I don't know what evidence DoE or FBI could have that CIA/NSA doesn't that leads them to the conclusion that it was a lab leak. > People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. You haven't presented any scientific facts. And then you pivoted into conspiracy theories about scientists. Yeah, there was a scientist early on who looked at the FCS and got startled by it and thought it was a smoking gun, and then after considering the scientific evidence he changed his mind. Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - kristopolous 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - zmgsabst 3y ago
        [flagged]
        kristopolous 3y ago
        [flagged]
        zmgsabst 3y ago
        You can be snarky, but that doesn’t change the situation: You can’t reply substantively. You’re a beacon of wisdom and wit!
        kristopolous 3y ago
        You called me a bunch of names, used classic harassment tactics and now you're negging me. I'll continue to respond to you by stepping over these tired traps you're trying to set.
        zmgsabst 3y ago
        You threw out a fallacy first, responded to pointing that out with dismissive snark, then whine when people call you positive names? I think that’s because you’re uncomfortable with the fact I called out your fallacy and told the truth — you’re unable to respond substantively. That kind of fallacy, then crying about how you’re the victim when people point it out, is a great example of bad faith — but why show good faith to That Team (TM)? You’re a paragon of virtue.
type0 3y ago
Why can't Wikipedia be consequent and implement the same policy on "The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male" and similar cases, if you criticize it then you are supporting racist undercurrents, while the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear than any can can be sufficiently falsified to placate supporters of this far-fledged theory, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking. /s
mandmandam 3y ago
You could write a book about how egregiously stupid that is. And on such an important topic! It's horrifying that grown adults take this bullshit at face value. Like - we know for a fact, thanks to many leaks, that scientists believed lableak was possible and even likely, that they were pressured from "on high" to say otherwise. We know for a fact that scientists and others who talked about the lableak theory - at all - had their posts delete, suppressed, "fact-checked", restricted, and were even banned or shadow-banned. So for that to be said with a straight face - it's vomitous. It's about as daft as calling Corbyn an anti-semite, or calling protestors who want a Gaza ceasefire 'violent extremists' and 'Hamas supporters'. Media's gonna media, I guess.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  >or calling protestor who want a Gaza ceasefire 'violent extremists' You're doing an egregious sanitization of what a lot of participants of the Palestine protests defend, establishing a Caliphate for one.[0] There are valid reasons to call Corbyn an anti-Semite. I will list them below, they are far too many.[1] None of these examples are comparable to the pressure to label the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy. [0]https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/anti-israel-protest-in-essen-sie-demonstrierten-fuer-ein-kalifat-in-deutschland-865129250785 https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/anti-israel-protest-in-essen-si... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/21/do-not-forget-jeremy-corbyn-failure-on-antisemitism https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/21/do-not-forg... Some of the evidence that supports calling Corbyn an anti semite are: - Corbyn wrote the foreword for a book that claims Jews control banks and the press[2]. - Corbyn expressed support for a self-described Holocaust denier and others accused of anti-Semitism[2]. - Corbyn laid a wreath at the graves of Palestinian terrorists who murdered 11 Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972[2]. - Corbyn failed to suspend or expel members of his party who engaged in anti-Semitic conduct, such as calling Jewish people "child killers", "Tory Jews" and "Zio scum"[3]. - Corbyn rejected the internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance[4]. - Corbyn was formally investigated by the UK's anti-racism watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which found that Labour had unlawfully discriminated against, harassed and victimized Jewish people[5]. - Corbyn refused to apologize for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in a BBC interview, and claimed that the issue had been "dramatically overstated for political reasons" by his opponents[6]. - Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party over his reaction to the anti-Semitism report, but later reinstated after he said he regretted his comments[7]. - Corbyn lost the support and trust of many Jewish voters and organizations, who feared that he would pose a threat to their safety and security if he became prime minister[8]. [2] Jeremy Corbyn | Politics | The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/jeremy-corbyn/2023/feb/21/all https://www.theguardian.com/politics/jeremy-corbyn/2023/feb/.... [3] Mike Katz on Twitter: "It's beyond time @guardian stopped giving Corbyn .... https://twitter.com/mikekatz/status/1628175186947080196 https://twitter.com/mikekatz/status/1628175186947080196. [4] Politics | The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics https://www.theguardian.com/politics. [5] Jeremy Corbyn and Labour's anti-Semitism row explained - BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-43893791 https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-43893791. [6] Document lists 9 instances of anti-Semitism by Corbyn among thousands .... https://www.timesofisrael.com/document-lists-9-instances-of-anti-semitism-by-corbyn-among-thousands-in-labour/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/document-lists-9-instances-of-.... [7] Labour suspends Jeremy Corbyn over reaction to anti-Semitism report - BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54730425 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54730425. [8] Labour suspends Jeremy Corbyn over reaction to anti-Semitism report - BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54730425 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54730425. [9] Jeremy Corbyn's Anti-Semitism Crisis | The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/jeremy-corbyns-anti-semitism-crisis https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/jeremy-cor....
olalonde 3y ago
I haven't really followed the lab leak theory but it's so frustrating when claims of "racist undercurrents" or "dog whistling" are made without substantial evidence. Those terms are just used to halt constructive dialogue and make unsubstantiated accusations. And they are often an instance of the following logical fallacy: "Racists support X, therefore supporting X is racist." Those terms were frequently used to shut down discussion when the Quebec government made the decision to prohibit certain public employees from displaying religious symbols a few years ago.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  I think what they're saying, though, is that constructive dialogue is impossible on this topic, making it a poor fit for Wikipedia regardless of one's personal opinions and beliefs on the subject. Which, until the Chinese decide to be more forthcoming with the world, is likely true. We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Of course it's possible, there are more heated and controversial topics than this one out there and Wikipedia tries to cover them all. But due to its wiki workflow Wikipedia never tried to stop the most maniacal editors from dominating its content through sheer bloody mindedness. > We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk. So no crime can ever be solved unless the criminal admits guilt? We do accept that things can be proven about events without the perp admitting directly they did it, and COVID's origins as a genetic engineering experiment gone wrong have long ago passed the threshold of all reasonable doubt.
    - ckoerner 3y ago
      Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources to write an article. If the majority of sources were to claim X came from Y, then yes, but without that, we can't state it as fact.
      - 3y ago
hot_gril 3y ago
The typo "any can can" is there in the article right now. But I'm not allowed to edit.
calibas 3y ago
That something fundamentally wrong with that article. There's two separate "lab leak" theories, one that the virus was genetically engineered, and the other theory is that it came from bats, but was accidentally leaked from the lab. The article merges the theories together, and then uses scientist's support of natural origin to dismiss both. Having it come from a wild bat doesn't suddenly rule out the lab that was doing research on wild bats.
- mikewarot 3y ago
  They shouldn't have been doing BSL4 level experiments in a BSL2 lab, and it got out by accident. The experiments shouldn't have happened in the first place... but that's another issue. The leaks were inevitable and predictable, which is why it should have been at least a BSL4 lab, that's another issue. No vast conspiracy, no fringe theories about bioweapons... just trying to get experiments done on the cheap. If we funded science research properly, the work would have been far better organized and managed.
gerdesj 3y ago
"The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents" The language used here is indicative. Few native English speakers would ever deploy a racist undercurrent when a perfectly decent overtone exists to do the job properly. An undercurrent is covert and an overtone is overt. The allegations are largely overt. It turns out that most large Chinese cities are home to labs that study coronaviruses and virus outbreaks occur rurally ... anyway the article is now obviously bollocks, through over editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory - click on View History, hit the 500 entry link and you will only go back to February this year! You do get to view the complete history of this article. You can watch it churn, revision by revision. There must be a paper in there or two - just on the revision history of a WP article. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1005881401 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak...
hot_gril 3y ago
At least it also mentions the better reason for these theories right before that, "secrecy during the Chinese government's response."

lucubratory 3y ago

That's a really good way to handle it. I don't know where the brain worms are from exactly, but I've seen people who don't otherwise have rocks for brains going full-on "All the scientists are wrong, I'm just asking questions, leaked from a Chinese lab!" about this specific conspiracy theory. I get there's a nationalism aspect, but that's no excuse to throw your brain out the window. Edit: It is weird that on a pretty technical forum there are a bunch of people here who don't know anything about virology disagreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus in the field, based on overtly conspiratorial thinking (e.g. "Look at the connections, this can't be a coincidence, this man leaked the truth and they silenced him" etc etc). You don't get to scientific consensus on something through a conspiracy. I wonder what the people replying with conspiracy theories think about climate change.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
> That's a really good way to handle it. Oh you were serious? Yea I guess I don’t get where anyone would get all that nonsense from. It’s nothing more than a coincidence that the first people that got sick worked in and around China’s only level4 bio lab, that the NIH was confirmed to 1-degree indirectly funding gain of function research on sars coronaviruses… then after the virus was out the Chinese government came in to prevent access to that facility and it’s data. I mean… how racist do you have to be to give any credit to the conspiracy theory that it didn’t come from a wet market near that lab?
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
Here we go again... Covid was an extreme case of "this is the only truth, everyone else has rocks for brains", and then the truth changing overnight. Masks don't help, you don't need them, just wash your hands, to you must wear a mask, vaccinated people don't get sick, don't spread the virus, to whoops, heart issues are just a conspiracy thory, to countries stopping use of specific vaccines due to heart issues. Don't be like that, accept that other theories are possible, and that we don't know the whole truth yet.
- kube-system 3y ago
  This is a revisionist interpretation of history. The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first. And in regards to the behavior of the virus, recommendations were always based on the best understanding of the virus at the time and were updated as those understandings changed. Public health guidance isn't "the science", it is a snapshot of professional interpretation of science at a single point in time.
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    We're not talking about scientific process, which changes with new evidence, we're talking about calling people as "heads filled with rocks" for suggesting that the current recommendations are bad/wrong/inapropriate/...., censoring them from social networks, calling them covid deniers, conspiracy theorists, having their wikipedia edits removed, doxing them, and in some cases, even doing stuff that affects their livelyhood, possible medical licences etc., then having the 'truth' change, not acknowledge that 'we' were wrong, and 'they' were right and apologizing, but again, doing all those things to the next group (eg. the ones who bought and wore masks in the time when it was "enough to just wash your hands" were "attacked" first, then the "attack" moved over to the ones who didn't want to wear a mask). If someone (from the government, national 'cdc', whoever) stood up infront of the cameras, said "we fucked up, masks are really needed, we thought so otherwise and gave bad advice, we're sorry, please wear masks", then sure... some will get mad, because their relatives died by following the advice, but for most, it would be a decent thing done by their governments... but banning people who suggested that we need masks, and then banning people who suggested that we didn't need masks without unbanning the first group, is, well... stupid. > The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first. Oh yeah, just a thing I'd like to see with people in power, scientists in doctors... "we lied to you, because we couldn't fill out order forms in time, you could have died by following our advice, but here's new advice, we're totally not lying now, whoopsie, sorry!" (but without the 'sorry'). How am I supposed to trust them now, when they recommend something else?
kbutler 3y ago
https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wr... """ The mainstream media downplayed—and even denied—the scientific theory that COVID-19 emerged from the WIV. Nicholas Wade testified about the campaign to discredit the lab leak theory. He pointed out that scientists kept in line with the natural origin camp led by Drs. Fauci and Collins because of their dependence on government grants and that the media failed to challenge the forced narrative. All witnesses agreed that the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab is not a conspiracy theory. """
- explaininjs 3y ago
  Also don't forget Fauci payed WIV to study bat coronaviruses. But since no document exists saying his money went directly to developing this particular coronavirus, we are supposed to take this as a nothing-burger. > In 2014, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the part of the NIH headed by Fauci, awarded a $3.4 million grant to the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, which aims to protect people from viruses that jump from species to species. > The group hired the virology lab in Wuhan to conduct genetic analyses of bat coronaviruses collected in Yunnan province, about 800 miles southwest of Wuhan. EcoHealth Alliance paid the lab $598,500 over five years. The lab had secured approval from both the U.S. State Department and the NIH. > That the NIAID funded the project is not in question. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/02/09/covid-dr-anthony-fauci-did-not-fund-research-tied-creation/4450338001/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
zmgsabst 3y ago
What specific evidence lends credence to the “overwhelming scientific consensus” you claim? There’s still no known natural precursor and the only thing we see with a similar Furin cleavage site (which greatly enhanced the virality) doesn’t look like the backbone of the virus. The only US intelligence agency which assessed the situation with moderate confidence was the one who concluded that it was a lab leak. The natural origin conclusion only received low confidence. Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. You seem to be ignoring the actual scientific data, the work of intelligence agencies, and the documented human aspects which impacted this. But yeah, keep throwing that abuse out there to shame others because they don’t recite the headlines as good as you. Edit: People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. Are they self-aware enough to realize they were fishing for a pretense to ignore you?
- lucubratory 3y ago
  >Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. Are you self-aware enough to know that this paragraph gives the game away that your whole comment is conspiratorial nonsense, or does it feel normal to you to theorise that some US public health official who got caught up in partisan US politics is personally intimidating scientists into agreeing with scientific consensus, and rewarding them with grants for doing so?
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Scientists have been caught red handed lying about lab leak https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical-of https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical...
- lamontcg 3y ago
  The PRRAR furin cleavage sequence wasn't a previously known furin cleavage pattern and its unlikely that human scientists would have tried to insert that particular pattern into the genome of a virus. We also now know of natural viruses which are very close to SARS-CoV-2 and only missing the FCS, but at the same time there has been zero evidence that WIV was ever working with SARS-CoV-2-like viruses when their focus was on SARS-CoV-1 like viruses. And the natural spillover event is the leading theory in the intelligence community, from the ODNI report: > The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. > The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons. > The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting. > Almost all IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Most agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not laboratory-adapted; some are unable to make a determination. All IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon. The natural spillover theory is the leading theory 5-to-3 compared to other theories and only DoE and the FBI think that the lab leak was more likely. Genetic engineering is not a well-supported theory. And I don't know what evidence DoE or FBI could have that CIA/NSA doesn't that leads them to the conclusion that it was a lab leak. > People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. You haven't presented any scientific facts. And then you pivoted into conspiracy theories about scientists. Yeah, there was a scientist early on who looked at the FCS and got startled by it and thought it was a smoking gun, and then after considering the scientific evidence he changed his mind. Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking.
kristopolous 3y ago
[flagged]
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - kristopolous 3y ago
        [flagged]
        zmgsabst 3y ago
        You can be snarky, but that doesn’t change the situation: You can’t reply substantively. You’re a beacon of wisdom and wit!
        kristopolous 3y ago
        You called me a bunch of names, used classic harassment tactics and now you're negging me. I'll continue to respond to you by stepping over these tired traps you're trying to set.
        zmgsabst 3y ago
        You threw out a fallacy first, responded to pointing that out with dismissive snark, then whine when people call you positive names? I think that’s because you’re uncomfortable with the fact I called out your fallacy and told the truth — you’re unable to respond substantively. That kind of fallacy, then crying about how you’re the victim when people point it out, is a great example of bad faith — but why show good faith to That Team (TM)? You’re a paragon of virtue.

type0 3y ago

Why can't Wikipedia be consequent and implement the same policy on "The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male" and similar cases, if you criticize it then you are supporting racist undercurrents, while the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear than any can can be sufficiently falsified to placate supporters of this far-fledged theory, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking. /s

mandmandam 3y ago

You could write a book about how egregiously stupid that is. And on such an important topic! It's horrifying that grown adults take this bullshit at face value. Like - we know for a fact, thanks to many leaks, that scientists believed lableak was possible and even likely, that they were pressured from "on high" to say otherwise. We know for a fact that scientists and others who talked about the lableak theory - at all - had their posts delete, suppressed, "fact-checked", restricted, and were even banned or shadow-banned. So for that to be said with a straight face - it's vomitous. It's about as daft as calling Corbyn an anti-semite, or calling protestors who want a Gaza ceasefire 'violent extremists' and 'Hamas supporters'. Media's gonna media, I guess.

hotdogscout 3y ago
>or calling protestor who want a Gaza ceasefire 'violent extremists' You're doing an egregious sanitization of what a lot of participants of the Palestine protests defend, establishing a Caliphate for one.[0] There are valid reasons to call Corbyn an anti-Semite. I will list them below, they are far too many.[1] None of these examples are comparable to the pressure to label the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy. [0]https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/anti-israel-protest-in-essen-sie-demonstrierten-fuer-ein-kalifat-in-deutschland-865129250785 https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/anti-israel-protest-in-essen-si... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/21/do-not-forget-jeremy-corbyn-failure-on-antisemitism https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/21/do-not-forg... Some of the evidence that supports calling Corbyn an anti semite are: - Corbyn wrote the foreword for a book that claims Jews control banks and the press[2]. - Corbyn expressed support for a self-described Holocaust denier and others accused of anti-Semitism[2]. - Corbyn laid a wreath at the graves of Palestinian terrorists who murdered 11 Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972[2]. - Corbyn failed to suspend or expel members of his party who engaged in anti-Semitic conduct, such as calling Jewish people "child killers", "Tory Jews" and "Zio scum"[3]. - Corbyn rejected the internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance[4]. - Corbyn was formally investigated by the UK's anti-racism watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which found that Labour had unlawfully discriminated against, harassed and victimized Jewish people[5]. - Corbyn refused to apologize for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in a BBC interview, and claimed that the issue had been "dramatically overstated for political reasons" by his opponents[6]. - Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party over his reaction to the anti-Semitism report, but later reinstated after he said he regretted his comments[7]. - Corbyn lost the support and trust of many Jewish voters and organizations, who feared that he would pose a threat to their safety and security if he became prime minister[8]. [2] Jeremy Corbyn | Politics | The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/jeremy-corbyn/2023/feb/21/all https://www.theguardian.com/politics/jeremy-corbyn/2023/feb/.... [3] Mike Katz on Twitter: "It's beyond time @guardian stopped giving Corbyn .... https://twitter.com/mikekatz/status/1628175186947080196 https://twitter.com/mikekatz/status/1628175186947080196. [4] Politics | The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics https://www.theguardian.com/politics. [5] Jeremy Corbyn and Labour's anti-Semitism row explained - BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-43893791 https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-43893791. [6] Document lists 9 instances of anti-Semitism by Corbyn among thousands .... https://www.timesofisrael.com/document-lists-9-instances-of-anti-semitism-by-corbyn-among-thousands-in-labour/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/document-lists-9-instances-of-.... [7] Labour suspends Jeremy Corbyn over reaction to anti-Semitism report - BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54730425 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54730425. [8] Labour suspends Jeremy Corbyn over reaction to anti-Semitism report - BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54730425 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54730425. [9] Jeremy Corbyn's Anti-Semitism Crisis | The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/jeremy-corbyns-anti-semitism-crisis https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/jeremy-cor....

olalonde 3y ago

I haven't really followed the lab leak theory but it's so frustrating when claims of "racist undercurrents" or "dog whistling" are made without substantial evidence. Those terms are just used to halt constructive dialogue and make unsubstantiated accusations. And they are often an instance of the following logical fallacy: "Racists support X, therefore supporting X is racist." Those terms were frequently used to shut down discussion when the Quebec government made the decision to prohibit certain public employees from displaying religious symbols a few years ago.

CamperBob2 3y ago
I think what they're saying, though, is that constructive dialogue is impossible on this topic, making it a poor fit for Wikipedia regardless of one's personal opinions and beliefs on the subject. Which, until the Chinese decide to be more forthcoming with the world, is likely true. We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Of course it's possible, there are more heated and controversial topics than this one out there and Wikipedia tries to cover them all. But due to its wiki workflow Wikipedia never tried to stop the most maniacal editors from dominating its content through sheer bloody mindedness. > We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk. So no crime can ever be solved unless the criminal admits guilt? We do accept that things can be proven about events without the perp admitting directly they did it, and COVID's origins as a genetic engineering experiment gone wrong have long ago passed the threshold of all reasonable doubt.
  - ckoerner 3y ago
    Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources to write an article. If the majority of sources were to claim X came from Y, then yes, but without that, we can't state it as fact.
    - 3y ago

hot_gril 3y ago

The typo "any can can" is there in the article right now. But I'm not allowed to edit.

calibas 3y ago

That something fundamentally wrong with that article. There's two separate "lab leak" theories, one that the virus was genetically engineered, and the other theory is that it came from bats, but was accidentally leaked from the lab. The article merges the theories together, and then uses scientist's support of natural origin to dismiss both. Having it come from a wild bat doesn't suddenly rule out the lab that was doing research on wild bats.

mikewarot 3y ago
They shouldn't have been doing BSL4 level experiments in a BSL2 lab, and it got out by accident. The experiments shouldn't have happened in the first place... but that's another issue. The leaks were inevitable and predictable, which is why it should have been at least a BSL4 lab, that's another issue. No vast conspiracy, no fringe theories about bioweapons... just trying to get experiments done on the cheap. If we funded science research properly, the work would have been far better organized and managed.

gerdesj 3y ago

"The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents" The language used here is indicative. Few native English speakers would ever deploy a racist undercurrent when a perfectly decent overtone exists to do the job properly. An undercurrent is covert and an overtone is overt. The allegations are largely overt. It turns out that most large Chinese cities are home to labs that study coronaviruses and virus outbreaks occur rurally ... anyway the article is now obviously bollocks, through over editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory - click on View History, hit the 500 entry link and you will only go back to February this year! You do get to view the complete history of this article. You can watch it churn, revision by revision. There must be a paper in there or two - just on the revision history of a WP article. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1005881401 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak...

hot_gril 3y ago

At least it also mentions the better reason for these theories right before that, "secrecy during the Chinese government's response."