Actually the conclusion of the latest report was that it might, but the evidence is weak. So, base your tirade on weak evidence, you get weak and underwhelming arguments like the ones in your post.
If that’s the case, let’s hear your counter argument in support of the collusion between various institutions to suppress and censor legitimate inquiry? What are the benefits to censorship and suppression?
The reason it’s weak is because China destroyed the evidence and punished anyone who spoke up or any nation that suggested an investigation.
My impression has been that the claims for censorship are just the same as the ones from the right who claim that they are being silenced.
In essence, even that frame that they want to use in the case of “hiding” or “censoring” is based on shaky evidence from right wing sources.
And that does not leave them off the hook, IMHO both origins can be considered, but it is really silly to ignore other possibilities as the right wing is demanding right now.
There was considerable effort to dismiss the theory at the start and it became political. Which is strange considering the efforts China went to prevent it from being investigated. When you say that it does not leave them off the hook seems to dismiss the seriousness of what they did.
I would think that people from both sides of the political aisle would demand an accounting of what is known.
No, that will be if I had said that they were left off the hook, I did not say that.
I know. The idea the lab leak theory is being censured is absolutely absurd. Even information having “low confidence” is plastered in headlines.
The statement from the FBI chief stating China lab leak most likely is “low confidence”?
The much bigger issue is that China intentionally destroyed all the evidence they could get their hands on. That was widely reported at the time. Honestly, that seems like a much more germane issue than whether the virus first infected a human in the lab or in the market.
It puzzles me that the letter gets tons of press and the former is rarely mentioned.
FWIW:
Tfletch1 Guest
Actually, I care if it’s one of the first two. Improving virus handling protocols is going to be way easier than preventing spillover from the wild. Even if hygiene in wet markets are improved, the chances of getting the virus from nature is so much higher. It’s what worries me the most.
2 Replies
Magiver Guest
Saying it was natural versus manufactured is not germane to the idea that it escaped from the Wuhan lab.
Novelty_Bobble Guest
I agree, having some certainty about where it came from can only be a good thing no matter what the answer is…
The statement that bumped this thread was from the energy department, as you well know since you’re the one who bumped the thread. Now FBI chief, Wray, is saying that it is likely (after I posted). Even his own FBI says this with “moderate confidence”. Meanwhile other intelligence agencies, and scientists who investigated it, favor the wet market hypothesis.
One of the authors of the investigations walks you through this in several tweets.
I agree. Destroying evidence speaks volumes.
AFAIK, click the “reply” button at the bottom of the thread versus the “reply” button from the last poster if you want to reply to the thread, versus the last poster.
But the problem with that investigation, and with any investigation done so far is that we can have little confidence in any analysis performed on data supplied by China when we know for a fact that they have destroyed and otherwise withheld information and also have a oft-stated motivation to have one preferred outcome from any investigation undertaken.
Might this be the full story? Sure, but what confidence should we have that it is?
It’s semi-hilarious that many pundits and news outlets hyping FBI support for the lab leak theory are the same ones who earlier denounced FBI investigations for being politically motivated and unreliable.
Beyond having a preponderance of evidence favoring a wild source for the virus, those doubting a lab leak can’t help noting that the most vociferous lab leak proponents tend to be antivaccine, anti-masking and denouncers of Fauci and other public health experts.
These folks want us to think that if they can implicate scientists and government entities in genesis of the pandemic, then all pandemic control measures can be dismissed. It’s an asinine, self-destructive viewpoint but popular among a certain demographic.
As for China, it may well be concealing information relating to its role in disease spread, but it also is secretive and uncooperative with outside entities in general.
Scientists have no bearing on the conversation since all the evidence was destroyed. All they can comment on is whether or not the virus appeared to be manipulated and that is not germane to this thread
A government agency has access to intel that is outside of the scientific community.
I didn’t know there was a difference. Thanks
First lets have evidence of suppression. Note that a bunch of scientists saying a particular theory is probably false and so not including it in their consensus report is not suppression.
It’s widespread knowledge at this point that social media companies were censoring the lab leak origin of the pandemic.