4 ms·

You’ve shown that zoonotic origin is a reasonable theory; I do not dispute that. I’m asking you to show that a reasonable person wouldn’t consider a lab origin

You’ve shown that zoonotic origin is a reasonable theory; I do not dispute that. I’m asking you to show that a reasonable person wouldn’t consider a lab origin, which is what you asserted.

_aavaa_ 11mo ago
That's not how the burden of proof works. If you are putting forth the lab leak origin, it is you who must provide reasonable evidence in support of it.
- Ancapistani 11mo ago
  I did not put it forth. The other user asserted that it was “conspiracy”. That’s the assertion that I’m challenging, not the veracity of the theory itself.
  - _aavaa_ 11mo ago
    I am not sure what you are trying to say. It is a conspiracy theory at this point because it is believes, in spite of the existing evidence, the covid absolutely came leaked from a lab rather than starting being of zoonotic orign. It also asserts a coverup by both the Chinese and American government, as well as cover ups and complicity from the entire Chinese and American virology community. This, despite the possibility seriously investigated by (at least the Americans) and finding very little evidence to support it, and far less than the zoonotic origin. That's why it's a conspiracy theory, because it alleges a conspiracy.
    - Ancapistani 11mo ago
      You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth here. The specific origins of the virus have not, to my knowledge, been confirmed. I am not asserting that it was a lab leak; I’m merely asserting that it is not unreasonable to consider it possible. Nowhere did I suggest that I believed it more likely to be the source than zoonotic spillover, nor did I assert anything about a coverup by any party. Frankly, this whole discussion is a great example of why I commented. It should absolutely not be discouraged to consider less-likely explanations when the most likely has not been conclusively proven.
      - amypetrik8 11mo ago
        [flagged]
      - hammock 11mo ago
        [flagged]
      - _aavaa_ 11mo ago
        > You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth here. I'm not putting them in your mouth, I am stating what the most popular strains of the lab leak approach are. > The specific origins of the virus have not, to my knowledge, been confirmed. They have not, and realistically never will be. What would even constitute confirmation? If it leaked out of a lab, the lab and or CCP could own up to it. But zoonotic origin? You'd basically need a time machine to confirm it. The discussion by scientists is about the balance of evidence. > nor did I assert anything about a coverup by any party. I am not saying, or implying, you did. I'm sorry if you got that impression. The assertion of a coverup however is intrinsic to any version of the theory that it leaked from a lab. If someone believes that it originated in a lab then the only explanation for why it hasn't been proven yet is that the lab, the scientists, and/or the CCP is actively covering it up. Which is a textbook definition of a conspiracy. > It should absolutely not be discouraged to consider less-likely explanations when the most likely has not been conclusively proven. Who is discouraging considering the explanation? Take a look even at the wikipedia page [0]. Both scientists and varying government agencies have looked into the theory, and they have found no credible evidence to back it up, while finding plenty of evidence in support of zoonotic origin. This discussion is not happening in early 2020, or even early 2021, when there is very little evidence to go on, it is happening in 2025 when there is plenty of evidence in support of zoonotic origin, and a of lack of evidence in favour of the lab leak theory. Discussion on the topic isn't being suppressed, it's that those supporting the lab leak theory are supporting it despite the evidence to the contrary. They are using it to attack scientists and science broadly because they believe scientists are in on it (a conspiracy theory) [1][2]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Government_and_intelligence_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Gover... [1]: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/interview-with-worobey-andersen-holmes-the-lab-leak https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/interview-wi... [2]: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/lab-leak-fever-with-philipp-markolin https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/lab-leak-fev...
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]

You’ve shown that zoonotic origin is a reasonable theory; I do not dispute that. I’m asking you to show that a reasonable person wouldn’t consider a lab origin, which is what you asserted.

_aavaa_ 11mo ago

That's not how the burden of proof works. If you are putting forth the lab leak origin, it is you who must provide reasonable evidence in support of it.

Ancapistani 11mo ago
I did not put it forth. The other user asserted that it was “conspiracy”. That’s the assertion that I’m challenging, not the veracity of the theory itself.
- _aavaa_ 11mo ago
  I am not sure what you are trying to say. It is a conspiracy theory at this point because it is believes, in spite of the existing evidence, the covid absolutely came leaked from a lab rather than starting being of zoonotic orign. It also asserts a coverup by both the Chinese and American government, as well as cover ups and complicity from the entire Chinese and American virology community. This, despite the possibility seriously investigated by (at least the Americans) and finding very little evidence to support it, and far less than the zoonotic origin. That's why it's a conspiracy theory, because it alleges a conspiracy.
  - Ancapistani 11mo ago
    You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth here. The specific origins of the virus have not, to my knowledge, been confirmed. I am not asserting that it was a lab leak; I’m merely asserting that it is not unreasonable to consider it possible. Nowhere did I suggest that I believed it more likely to be the source than zoonotic spillover, nor did I assert anything about a coverup by any party. Frankly, this whole discussion is a great example of why I commented. It should absolutely not be discouraged to consider less-likely explanations when the most likely has not been conclusively proven.
    - amypetrik8 11mo ago
      [flagged]
    - hammock 11mo ago
      [flagged]
    - _aavaa_ 11mo ago
      > You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth here. I'm not putting them in your mouth, I am stating what the most popular strains of the lab leak approach are. > The specific origins of the virus have not, to my knowledge, been confirmed. They have not, and realistically never will be. What would even constitute confirmation? If it leaked out of a lab, the lab and or CCP could own up to it. But zoonotic origin? You'd basically need a time machine to confirm it. The discussion by scientists is about the balance of evidence. > nor did I assert anything about a coverup by any party. I am not saying, or implying, you did. I'm sorry if you got that impression. The assertion of a coverup however is intrinsic to any version of the theory that it leaked from a lab. If someone believes that it originated in a lab then the only explanation for why it hasn't been proven yet is that the lab, the scientists, and/or the CCP is actively covering it up. Which is a textbook definition of a conspiracy. > It should absolutely not be discouraged to consider less-likely explanations when the most likely has not been conclusively proven. Who is discouraging considering the explanation? Take a look even at the wikipedia page [0]. Both scientists and varying government agencies have looked into the theory, and they have found no credible evidence to back it up, while finding plenty of evidence in support of zoonotic origin. This discussion is not happening in early 2020, or even early 2021, when there is very little evidence to go on, it is happening in 2025 when there is plenty of evidence in support of zoonotic origin, and a of lack of evidence in favour of the lab leak theory. Discussion on the topic isn't being suppressed, it's that those supporting the lab leak theory are supporting it despite the evidence to the contrary. They are using it to attack scientists and science broadly because they believe scientists are in on it (a conspiracy theory) [1][2]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Government_and_intelligence_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Gover... [1]: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/interview-with-worobey-andersen-holmes-the-lab-leak https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/interview-wi... [2]: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/lab-leak-fever-with-philipp-markolin https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/lab-leak-fev...
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]