Shocking. Scientists discussed zoonotic spread versus lab leak (being open to all possibilities) and went with zoonotic spread as being more likely when the evidence led in this direction. Those who support lab leak need to go by evidence, not cherry picked emails.
Shocking. Scientists discussed zoonotic spread versus lab leak (being open to all possibilities) and went with zoonotic spread as being more likely when the evidence led in this direction. Those who support lab leak need to go by evidence, not cherry picked emails.
I think that one big mistake people like Greenwald & Taibbi make is confusing scientific discussion of lab leak (generally accidental) which was not censored & nutty conspiracy theories such as Plandemic which some social media did restrict. They then misunderstand the discussion
@RonChusid @edwardcholmes They didn’t just go with “more likely” though did they…
@RonChusid They were limited by the trust they put in Chinese officials though. I think the obfuscation & information withholding that is still a factor limited a truly objective analysis. Not saying it definitely was a lab leak but the degree with which it could be falsified was affected
@RonChusid The issue is that people lost their jobs for saying a lab leak was a possibility. Which these authors privately agreed with, while their paper was used to paint those others as conspiracy theorists.