If it can be abused, it will be abused. Corruption exists anywhere humans exist. Convenience and security are the bait. Why do people want to be caged?
Respectfully, I challenge you to show that it's any more "in the conspiracy theory category" than zoonotic crossover in a wet market.
I don't mean to say that it's proven, because to my knowledge it is not. There is a great deal more evidence pointing to it being likely than necessary for it to be considered a mainstream theory.
> One of the contentions in support of this theory was that the furin cleavage site on the virus has never been found in nature. Therefore, to some, that meant it must have been created in a laboratory... Recently, Wu and coworkers identified a bat virus (Bat CoV CD35) that harbored a furin cleavage site identical to that found on SARS-CoV-2 (Zhu W, Huang Y, Gong J, et al. A novel bat coronavirus with a polybasic furin-like cleavage site.
> There is now abundant evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was an animal-to-human spillover event that occurred in the western section of the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market that housed several live animals that were susceptible to the virus. Indeed, the early cases of COVID-19 centered on that section of the market.
> The hunt for the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has new leads. Researchers have identified half a dozen animal species that could have passed SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, to people, by reanalysing genomes collected from an animal market in Wuhan, China1. The study establishes the presence of animals and the virus at the market, although it does not confirm whether the animals themselves were infected with the virus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].
First - thanks for waiting a few days to reply. I do that quite a bit on controversial topics like this to limit potential flame wars.
I know I'm picking and choosing a bit in replying; I read your entire comment and gave it thought. If I don't quote it, it's likely simply because I agree or have nothing to add.
> I'm not putting them in your mouth, I am stating what the most popular strains of the lab leak approach are.
My apologies then, I misunderstood.
> What would even constitute confirmation?
I can't think of anything that would likely come to light after years that would qualify.
> If it leaked out of a lab, the lab and or CCP could own up to it.
I disagree. I believe they would, but cannot rule out that they would not.
Note that I am not asserting that they have hidden anything; I am saying that it's not unreasonable to leave open the possibility.
> But zoonotic origin? You'd basically need a time machine to confirm it. The discussion by scientists is about the balance of evidence.
I'm not in a discussion of scientists about the origin - I'm in a discussion on a forum of like-minded people :).
The fact that there is no proven origin at this point strongly suggests zoonotic origin. So strongly that I would put it at approximately the level of confident that I would have for a scientific theory - that I would consider it true and that evidence contradicting it would have to pass quite a high bar.
> They are using it to attack scientists and science broadly because they believe scientists are in on it (a conspiracy theory)
I agree, and don't like that either. My motivation is to say that we should leave room for investigation, and that we shouldn't try to limit the conversation of interested parties who want to continue considering it as a possibility.
I think the key difference here is that I see a distinction between saying "this isn't conclusive" and saying "the prevailing opinion is wrong". I'm saying the former, not the latter.
I’m sorry but no, I consider myself quite rational and I simply didn’t stay up to date on the subject, to me it was still a possible theory with others. When a theory was seriously considered not too long ago you can’t suddenly label it conspiracy.
In the dictionary definition that politics is "the total complex of relations between people living in society", academic rigor is defined by academic politics. It is a political problem, which means the definition and fundamental regulation will be made by politicians.
Consider supporting politicians who respect expertise. If you aren't presented with that ballot choice, at least vote against the anti-intellectuals.
I suggest we should strive for a more educated public to raise the percentage of people who can have informed discussions. We've seen what happens when education is watered down, so let's try raising the bar, and pushing more science in high schools.
Sounds lke you grew up in the wrong small town, you could say the same about a bad neighborhood in any major city. I get around in the midwest for motorsports events, and there is a critical mass of people who love to meet travellers and love to travel themselves. Maybe it's condescension they distrust?
OPV is ordinarily given on a sugar cube. I'm an old man so that's how I got mine and while I'm a fussy person I don't remember it tasting significantly different from an ordinary sugar cube.
I mean, I guess the growth medium the virus actually lives in (OPV is an attenuated virus, so it's actually polio, which is why the industrialized North which eradicated polio no longer uses this, too risky) probably tastes nasty but you're not supposed to be drinking growth medium, just get a dab on a sugar cube or something.
There is no chance that if people used a different word that feelings would be different. This is just a way of taking agency away from the people who are actively promoting belief systems that create mountains of corpses.
Do you have proof "public trust in health institutions is crumbling"?
Fairly sure the fact that for example, the US doesn't have universal healthcare, is considered a tragedy by many people, which would point in the exact opposite direction.
They're anti science and I'm also fairly sure that despite Trump hypocritically getting every COVID vaccine ASAP for himself and his family, he's been at best ambiguous about vaccines publicly (pandering to his "freedom" base) and has peddled pseudo medicine a bunch of times.
I write all of this as a fully vaccinated person who never voted for Trump…
You really need to look at the timeline here. Operation Warp Speed was a Trump program that fast tracked the Covid vaccine development and their “emergency use” approval. The vaccines were not even available to the public until 5 weeks before Biden was sworn in. VP Harris in an interview prior to the election suggested that should would be skeptical of “Trumps Vaccines” and that the American people should be as well.
When Trump was talking about those alternative treatments it was way before the vaccines were available. Those things were not necessarily “pseudoscience” at the time because scientists were actively testing many different treatment therapies because the vaccines were not yet available. Those were definitely some treatments that was being tested and experimented with by numerous doctors and scientists becuase the medical establishment was desperate for an effective treatment. Certainly the idiot Fauci had his opinions, but we now know that many of Fauci’s recommendations were utter bullshit that was not grounded in science either.
But back to your characterization of “hypocrisy”. Is it hypocrisy to simply “not force someone to get an experimental vaccine but get one yourself”? Seems to me “hypocrisy” might be better illustrated by downplaying the development of a vaccine and expressing and encouraging skepticism publicly of it just because your political opponent is associated with it? THEN…adopting that same vaccine you decried and forcing people to get it. That’s a better example of hypocrisy than just saying “I am getting it, but you do you”.
> You really need to look at the timeline here. Operation Warp Speed was a Trump program that fast tracked the Covid vaccine development and their “emergency use” approval.
The Global Health Security and Biodefense Directorate inside the NSC was disbanded 18 months before Covid emerged. It was established by the Obama administration as a response to the Ebola outbreak. What’s your point exactly?
I know people point to that in some sort of accusatory suggestion regarding Covid, but to my knowledge no one has provided any definitive proof that the pandemic would have been better or worse for the US if that council was around in 2020. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that the US response would have been different if it existed or the that the pandemic would have been prevented. It was re-established under Biden, but Biden’s coronavirus approach didn’t seem to be measurably better than Trump’s, in fact it was worse. They pretty much continued and doubled down on the same wrongheaded approach that Trump was doing.
reply