That conversation is better suited to the politics forum.
I am pleased some on here noted how hard and to what lengths the MSM and big tech conspired to stigmatize, delegitimize and deplatform anyone who suggested a lab leak. They actually do that quite a lot when you pay attention and small groups figuring out what they should all know, sometimes months or even years ahead is not uncommon.
But that is better for politics forums too.
Well, I think itās reasonable to assume China is a bad-faith actor. Youāre just preaching to the choir on this one.
But theyāre also consistently not-transparent, I wouldnāt say their lack of co-operation here is evidence in itself of the origin.
Though the fact theyāre not transparent makes speculation about the origin totally fair game.
But regardless, it doesnāt make it ok to act like something is true when the facts donāt prove it, even if everyone thinks China did something bad. As I mentioned before, that opens the door for bad-faith players to hijack the subject of science and evidence, with their politics.
It was accidentally released from a lab and then the CCP covered the release up. For some odd reason this became politicised in the west.
There will almost certainly never be enough evidence to categorically state true or untrue, so at some point a best guess has to be made with the available evidence plus the blindingly obvious situation.
This whole āwe canāt be sure about a lab releaseā is just another attempt to discredit the lab release theory IMO.
Iām sure some people do try to actively discredit one or the other, because agenda.
But speaking definitively with a tone āI knew itā or āitās obviousā when itās not yet known, is exactly the same thing.
If the concern is future prevention, again, thereās no reason to assume anything about specific theories being reality at this point.
We can assume though that itās a result of Chinaās negligence at best, this covers all theories.
Only if thereās an agenda in the first place. If it hadnāt been politicised nobody would take issue with someone posting āāitās obviousāā. They would respond with āI donāt think itās obvious becauseā¦ā, not āYou shouldnāt say thatā.
I think you are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact, that is exactly what the media did, the same media you constantly tout as being so reliable because they double check everything, Also groups like the WHO and Dr. Fauchi were not being forthcoming, while you were telling everyone to listen to the scientists when they were largely spouting Chinese talking points and finally your advocacy of big tech censorship and deplatforming on a topic that should have been apolitical.
Anyway, thatās it for me on this topic.
Donāt believe experts, Fauci Fauci, roger over and out. 
The Lancet should hang their head in shame.
Yes, saying definitively that something is true, or untrue which has yet to be proven/disproven as such, reveals a form of agenda, always. Simple as that. Iāve already agreed on that point once, I think?
Clearly what Iām referring to, is the difference between āI think x is trueā and āx is trueā (even though itās yet to be shown definitively), in a science forum.
I mean speaking like that anywhere, I donāt think itās particularly responsible, for it muddies the waters between theory and fact, and opens the door for bad faith players. Iām sure weāll hear from those in due time (it has started already as a political narrative, one about as subtle as a sledgehammer).
Itās telling how the people most willing to give up their freedoms, accept government overreach and support Marxist ideologies are the same people willing to give China the biggest benefit of the doubt.
We would all like the scientists, media and big tech to follow the method on the left, however it is clear they used the method to the right.
It seems to me that the lab-leak hypothesis was deliberately conflated by the media last year with the man-made hypothesis. I felt this was done to leave no room to discuss the CCPās negligence in handling the entire affair.
Nothing wrong with questioning certain experts at certain times, if thereās indication there should be questions raised.
Been over this a million times before though. Baby with bathwater is not a smart approach. Dismantling WHO, for example, if some leadership is rightly to be questioned, also not a smart approach.
Find one expert out of many one can call into question, in order to create equivalency with all non-experts (google experts 
).
Yes, Iām aware of this gameplan, to muddy waters, blanket question years of expertise and institutions, so less serious people then get taken more seriously. Thanks for reminding me though. 
Donāt think a lot of it is deliberate (obviously there can be some not-so-innocuous connections), but at best there are definitely elements there that are ignorant and naive at work, in the reluctance to criticize China.
For example I see Canadians complaining a lot about whenever someone tries to take Trudeau to task on CCP issues, he likes to imply itās not appropriate/racist, apparently. Havenāt followed super close but thatās generally what I see mentioned.
I think that kind of reaction is stupid of course, and also something thatās pervasive in many parts of society, government, media, down to individuals. I think itās more a disconnect between first world communities, for lack of a better term, and realities that exist outside of the first world bubble.
The good news is recent polls show that pretty much worldwide, anti-CCP sentiment is way up among populations. A good sign in getting the ball rolling on waking up elements of both media and government to try and cover this stuff straight up, without tippy toeing around so much.
Your reply is focused only on the political aspects of what we are discussing, which once again is better for the political forums.
The method by which we should deal with an issue scientifically is appropriate for this forum. Dismissing credible theories for political reasons is unscientific.
While the general population started speculating about the possibility of a lab leak in early Feb 2020, one might wonder when that possibility entered the thought process of our trusted scientific leaders. According to Peter Navaro who was in closed door meetings with the likes of Dr. Fauchi, he never once brought it up as a possibility right up till the election.
Imagine how the world might have reacted if the possibility occurred to Fauchi and others say in mid Jan 2020 and they had said āhey everyone, we canāt say for sure, but this might be a lab leak and a very dangerous bio weaponā maybe the world would have reacted differently?
We should not think the scientific community should be discounted if one finds a bad apple. I donāt think your meme really adds much to the discussion either, other than being a projection of what you wish to be true, perhaps.
Focus on the facts from experts who grossly outnumber the bad apples, because they will still always have more facts and knowledge than google experts like you, or me (though again Iām not jumping to conclusions here in lieu of evidence).
Itās a very facile technique to default trust no one. And not one that solves many problems, Iād wager.
Not a question of trusting or not trusting someone. There are questions being asked now, in light of some of Dr Fauchis emails, like this one (in late January 2020).
Re: FW: Science: Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak 's origins
Hi Tony,
Thanks for sharing. Yes, I saw th is earlier today and both Eddie and myself are actually quoted in it . Itās a great article, but the problem is that our phylogenetic analyses arenāt able to answer whether the sequences are unusual at indivi dual residues, except if they are completely of f. On a phylogenetic t ree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir . The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered. We have a good team lined up to look very critically at this, so we should know much more at the end of the weekend . I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory . But we have to look at this much more closely and th ere are still further analyses to be done, so tho se opinions could still change.
Best,
Kristian
Specifically the discussion is about possible engineered virus, noting it looks inconsistent with evolution.
Dr. Fauchi as Peter Navaro says, never brought that up as a possibility, why not? Big tech and media teamed up to make sure no one asked that question going so far as to deplatform anyone who suggested it, why?
I think those are good questions.
Navarro is a politician and Trump sycophant though, Fauci is a career public servant across various presidencies, and disease expert.
Remember, science over politics. You may want to recalibrate whose questions you listen to.
Just posting some excerpts from various materials; okay to temp if itās too bulky.
From the Newsweek article at the top of the thread:
This is from a fairly recent interview of Dr. Fauci:
An excerpt from an email in a large collection of emails apparently obtained by means of the Freedom of Information Act:
From a 2015 Nature article on experimentation with bat virus:
The above article links to another article about the experiment referred to above (or I hope thatās what it links to); itās far too technical for me, but hereās the link: A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence | Nature Medicine
