6 ms·

There is quite a lot of evidence, it's a lie to say otherwise. I don't think there's a smoking gun, but there is a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence.

by Mizza 2y ago

There is quite a lot of evidence, it's a lie to say otherwise. I don't think there's a smoking gun, but there is a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence. Some of it was outlined nicely here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid... (Although you're not wrong about the disease risks of factory farming.)

fsh 2y ago
I can't find a single piece of evidence in the article. These Gish gallops of utter bullshit have really poisoned the public debate.
- Mizza 2y ago
  Okay, now you're just being disingenuous. There is plenty of actual evidence and a timeline of events in the linked article, and that's not what "Gish gallop" means.
southernplaces7 2y ago
Amusing to see the NY Times, which hysterically screamed about misinformation and its dangers for several years during a certain pandemic and a certain presidency, now doing a neat 180-degree turn on the lab leak theory from its previous and blatantly political stance. The same paper, by the way, that also lovingly supported the WMD claims against Iraq during the Bush administration. I personally believe the lab leak theory extremely plausible, but the general and persistent mendacity and hypocrisy of this particular newspaper are staggeringly massive enough to form their own gravitational field.. The narrative grifters posing as reporters and editors at the NY Times robustly deserve every ounce of scorn that can be dumped upon them.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  I'm still on the fence about the origins of COVID, but I generally disregard an opinion when a comment attacks a publication rather than facts, uses phrases like "hysterically screamed".
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    One can agree with the plausibility of a publication's argument in one articule (as I actually do in this case) and still make a general point about the nature and tendencies of the wider publication/media organization behind it. This is an obvious thing, and nitpicking about it is ridiculous. The NY Times has indeed performed many internally, centrally guided ideological contortions to suit its own cynical motives (like many other media sources do) and absolutely deserves being called out on its bullshittery.
- fsh 2y ago
  This is not a NYT article, it is an opinion piece written by a third-party author. The NYT editors often don't apply very strict journalistic standards to opinion pieces. This is an (in my opinion somewhat misguided) attempt to be "neutral".
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    Really? So it's not an article written for the New York Times despite being an article posted on the website of the New York Times? Are opinion pieces, which indeed do get vetted too, somehow categorized as things that randomly form into existence within their own rules of causation, as if they were like sinkholes or lightning strikes? Also, to clarify better, I guess, I don't disagree with the plausibility of the arguments in this particular piece. My main point was about the NY Times in general and its past actions.
pcrh 2y ago
> there is a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence. In other words, there's literally no scientific evidence that SARS-CoV2 and the pandemic emerged as the result of lab-based activity, either malicious or accidental. This is despite huge efforts to prove so. There is, however, a wealth of scientific evidence that SARS-CoV2 is the result of zoonotic transmission, as has been seen for similar viruses in the past (SARS, MERS), as well as for hundreds of other pathogens throughout history.
- dist-epoch 2y ago
  > wealth of scientific evidence that SARS-CoV2 is the result of zoonotic transmission No there isn't. Just speculation, so in the same category with the lab-leak theory. The host animal has not been found. Nor patient zero. Isn't it interesting, that in 5 years China could put out a detailed timeline of what happened, who got infected where?
  - pcrh 2y ago
    You're correct that the immediate host animal hasn't been found. But that problem also applies to the lab leak hypothesis, since there's no evidence in the genome of SARS-CoV2 that it is an artificial virus. It is in fact over 95% similar to similar viruses isolated in the wild. The first patients were all associated with the market, and genetic evidence shows that the virus was circulating there for weeks (at least) before the first recognized case of covid. That is consistent with what we now know, i.e. that most SARS-CoV2 infections do not lead to severe disease.

by Mizza 2y ago

fsh 2y ago

I can't find a single piece of evidence in the article. These Gish gallops of utter bullshit have really poisoned the public debate.

Mizza 2y ago
Okay, now you're just being disingenuous. There is plenty of actual evidence and a timeline of events in the linked article, and that's not what "Gish gallop" means.

southernplaces7 2y ago

Amusing to see the NY Times, which hysterically screamed about misinformation and its dangers for several years during a certain pandemic and a certain presidency, now doing a neat 180-degree turn on the lab leak theory from its previous and blatantly political stance. The same paper, by the way, that also lovingly supported the WMD claims against Iraq during the Bush administration. I personally believe the lab leak theory extremely plausible, but the general and persistent mendacity and hypocrisy of this particular newspaper are staggeringly massive enough to form their own gravitational field.. The narrative grifters posing as reporters and editors at the NY Times robustly deserve every ounce of scorn that can be dumped upon them.

JKCalhoun 2y ago
I'm still on the fence about the origins of COVID, but I generally disregard an opinion when a comment attacks a publication rather than facts, uses phrases like "hysterically screamed".
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  One can agree with the plausibility of a publication's argument in one articule (as I actually do in this case) and still make a general point about the nature and tendencies of the wider publication/media organization behind it. This is an obvious thing, and nitpicking about it is ridiculous. The NY Times has indeed performed many internally, centrally guided ideological contortions to suit its own cynical motives (like many other media sources do) and absolutely deserves being called out on its bullshittery.
fsh 2y ago
This is not a NYT article, it is an opinion piece written by a third-party author. The NYT editors often don't apply very strict journalistic standards to opinion pieces. This is an (in my opinion somewhat misguided) attempt to be "neutral".
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  Really? So it's not an article written for the New York Times despite being an article posted on the website of the New York Times? Are opinion pieces, which indeed do get vetted too, somehow categorized as things that randomly form into existence within their own rules of causation, as if they were like sinkholes or lightning strikes? Also, to clarify better, I guess, I don't disagree with the plausibility of the arguments in this particular piece. My main point was about the NY Times in general and its past actions.

pcrh 2y ago

> there is a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence. In other words, there's literally no scientific evidence that SARS-CoV2 and the pandemic emerged as the result of lab-based activity, either malicious or accidental. This is despite huge efforts to prove so. There is, however, a wealth of scientific evidence that SARS-CoV2 is the result of zoonotic transmission, as has been seen for similar viruses in the past (SARS, MERS), as well as for hundreds of other pathogens throughout history.

dist-epoch 2y ago
> wealth of scientific evidence that SARS-CoV2 is the result of zoonotic transmission No there isn't. Just speculation, so in the same category with the lab-leak theory. The host animal has not been found. Nor patient zero. Isn't it interesting, that in 5 years China could put out a detailed timeline of what happened, who got infected where?
- pcrh 2y ago
  You're correct that the immediate host animal hasn't been found. But that problem also applies to the lab leak hypothesis, since there's no evidence in the genome of SARS-CoV2 that it is an artificial virus. It is in fact over 95% similar to similar viruses isolated in the wild. The first patients were all associated with the market, and genetic evidence shows that the virus was circulating there for weeks (at least) before the first recognized case of covid. That is consistent with what we now know, i.e. that most SARS-CoV2 infections do not lead to severe disease.