It's worth noting the original tweet is from Peter Daszak, who has been president of EcoHealth Alliance which has for 15 years worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology studying bat coronaviruses[1][2][3]. He's been on record many times at least since February 2020 saying the ideas of lab break were "crackpot theories that need to be addressed" else they might harm our cooperation with China.[4]
At the very least that seems like a conflict of interest and perhaps the WHO should be sending investigators to China without longstanding professional ties to the lab whose name they aim to clear, who weren't already on record with their conclusions a year before they were sent to investigate their colleagues.
Adding on the above comment, Daszak’s role in promoting the contentious theory of Covid spontaneously developing in wildlife is widely and credibly documented.
Even if you agree with him, it’s fair to point out he had a strong point of view before he ever went on this mission to Wuhan.
It’s also worth pointing out that in at least one way the linked tweet lends credibility to the nyt report: it acknowledges “heated arguments” on the WHO mission.
Finally, if you read the NYT report you’ll see it is building off recent reporting on the WHO trip by WSJ and the Australian Broadcasting Company. The issue of possible (accidental - not engineered by govt) lab origins for this sort of virus, in the past or future, is also a real and widely covered credible issue. There are a lot of comments here alleging an nyt agenda. Maybe you can argue the mainstream press has one, but this coverage is not particularly unusual, either on the WHO trip or Wuhan. (Also, it can be argued the MSM under covered the possible lab origins of Covid for months, scared of being lumped in with people who were saying the Chinese govt made it on purpose.)
Not surprised you are getting immediately down voted. My post is as well. There seems to be bias HN users as well, no amount of facts or historical reference is enough to correct it.
"In an interview after his return to New York, Daszak said that the visit had provided some new clues, which ALL of the scientists, Chinese and international, agreed most likely pointed to an animal origin within China or Southeast Asia. The scientists have largely discounted claims that the virus originated in a lab, saying that possibility was so unlikely that it was not worth further investigation."
I think it would probably be worthwhile for the WHO to send over as their investigator the president of the microbial threats forum from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine -- the collective scientific national academy of the United States of America.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-esca...
Even if you agree with him, it’s fair to point out he had a strong point of view before he ever went on this mission to Wuhan.
It’s also worth pointing out that in at least one way the linked tweet lends credibility to the nyt report: it acknowledges “heated arguments” on the WHO mission.
Finally, if you read the NYT report you’ll see it is building off recent reporting on the WHO trip by WSJ and the Australian Broadcasting Company. The issue of possible (accidental - not engineered by govt) lab origins for this sort of virus, in the past or future, is also a real and widely covered credible issue. There are a lot of comments here alleging an nyt agenda. Maybe you can argue the mainstream press has one, but this coverage is not particularly unusual, either on the WHO trip or Wuhan. (Also, it can be argued the MSM under covered the possible lab origins of Covid for months, scared of being lumped in with people who were saying the Chinese govt made it on purpose.)