> journal Lancet, calling the lab leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory (…) One of the authors was Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that has worked extensively on coronavirus research with the Wuhan institute.
Wasn’t that odd? The person involved with the lab said “nothing to see” and it’s all a conspiracy theory. And a prestigious journal published it, and the media then beat everyone on the head with it at the slightest hint of disagreement. Do you want for people to lose confidence in the scientific community and fuel more conspiracy theories, because that’s exactly how you do it.
> Fauci has denied ever calling the lab leak a conspiracy theory and says that scenario can’t be excluded.
There should be a name for conspiracies that were once it conspiracy theories. There is something more interesting about them than the plain ol’ boring conspiracies.
I don't see how anyone could have read the defuse proposal and failed to conclude that it was highly likely that covid was a lab leak.
Particularly given the propensity in research to seek funding for work you already did under the table with the last round of funding, in order to reliably deliver on what you said you would do.
Even if, by unlikely chance, it wasn't actually human in origin that parties were engaging in activities which could reasonably be expected to have that outcome, and so the issue ought to be addressed as-if it has happened even if it didn't.
... like you learn your children were playing with matches in a field where a raging wild fire began which killed thousands and that their activity had been covered up by the creepy neighbor that gave them matches. If it later turned out that the true proximal cause of the fire was lightning it doesn't change that something needs to be done regarding the pyromaniac kids and the people who lied to cover up their activity.
spzb|1 year ago
Centrino|1 year ago
rdtsc|1 year ago
Wasn’t that odd? The person involved with the lab said “nothing to see” and it’s all a conspiracy theory. And a prestigious journal published it, and the media then beat everyone on the head with it at the slightest hint of disagreement. Do you want for people to lose confidence in the scientific community and fuel more conspiracy theories, because that’s exactly how you do it.
> Fauci has denied ever calling the lab leak a conspiracy theory and says that scenario can’t be excluded.
There should be a name for conspiracies that were once it conspiracy theories. There is something more interesting about them than the plain ol’ boring conspiracies.
nullc|1 year ago
Particularly given the propensity in research to seek funding for work you already did under the table with the last round of funding, in order to reliably deliver on what you said you would do.
Even if, by unlikely chance, it wasn't actually human in origin that parties were engaging in activities which could reasonably be expected to have that outcome, and so the issue ought to be addressed as-if it has happened even if it didn't.
... like you learn your children were playing with matches in a field where a raging wild fire began which killed thousands and that their activity had been covered up by the creepy neighbor that gave them matches. If it later turned out that the true proximal cause of the fire was lightning it doesn't change that something needs to be done regarding the pyromaniac kids and the people who lied to cover up their activity.