4 ms·
That’s a very interesting read. What were the arguments against? Was this dismissed?
by rhubarbtree 1y ago
That’s a very interesting read. What were the arguments against? Was this dismissed?
- tim333 1y agoThe debate goes on and both sides are fairly fixed in their views. I think the evidence is strong in favour of a lab origin but wikipedia still is against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2
- rhubarbtree 1y agoWell, the Wikipedia article is clearly incorrect - the lab leak hypothesis is supported by evidence. Even if you don’t think it’s true, you have to agree that there is at least some supporting evidence that adds weight to the hypothesis. Not a great advert for Wikipedia. The absolutist statement clearly indicates political bias rather than objective enquiry. I knew that some people still think the market hypothesis is true (despite the lack of good evidence), I was more interested in the response to this particular testimonial? For example, did anyone push back on specific points? I ran the doc through AI and asked it to form the strongest counter arguments it could muster. It didn’t do well and concluded lab leak was more likely than market.
- tim333 1y agoYeah. I was saddened by Wikipedia's take as I always thought of it as an open platform where you could put facts for both sides of a debate but on the lab leak they have very much taken a one sided approach.